2010 Olympics vs. 72 Summit Series

[VMBM]

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.

So would have basically any later Canadian and Soviet team done too.

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.

Okay, I'll bite.

Yep, a diamond out of a turd just by preparing well, eh? It doesn't matter who's playing at all. For some reason, even though e.g. the 1980 Canada prepared just as well as Team USA, they finished 6th in the tournament. And the same with 1984 and/or 1988 US and Canadian Olympic teams, and they did poorly.

Also, if it was about preparation, then the NHL club teams should have absolutely dominated against the Soviet club teams. But the Soviet teams won most of their games, even teams like Dynamo Moscow.

Even though IMO there have been bigger single miracles even in hockey than 1980 (the 2002 Belarus beating Sweden, for example), the 1980 Olympics was a true miracle. Only an idiot would claim otherwise (if the shoe fits...).

I see a lot of Canadian pride being hurt by the Soviets in the 1970s/1980s here. So you need to have a reason for it, and thus you massively overdo the "team preparation" factor. But "whatever gets you through the night", as they say.

 

[patnyrnyg]

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.

There is nothing missing and you are the one not using logic. Canada expected to trample the Soviets and prove they were amateurs who didn't belong on the same ice as them. Soviets proved all of Canada wrong, so not sure how that can be the defining moment for Canada's hockey history.

If anything, I would say it was the 87 Canada Cup ahead of the 72 Summit Series. After the loss in 81, then winning in 84, 87 confirmed their place at the top of the International Hockey world.

 

[JackSlater]

There is nothing missing and you are the one not using logic. Canada expected to trample the Soviets and prove they were amateurs who didn't belong on the same ice as them. Soviets proved all of Canada wrong, so not sure how that can be the defining moment for Canada's hockey history.

If anything, I would say it was the 87 Canada Cup ahead of the 72 Summit Series. After the loss in 81, then winning in 84, 87 confirmed their place at the top of the International Hockey world.

Thanks for your input. The whole country disagrees with you. I'm sure you are right and all Canadians are wrong though. It doesn't matter what the public expected at the time, because the Soviets turned out to be great in reality. A huge comeback against a great team is easy enough for basically anyone to understand the significance of, yourself excluded.

 

[Macman]

There is nothing missing and you are the one not using logic. Canada expected to trample the Soviets and prove they were amateurs who didn't belong on the same ice as them. Soviets proved all of Canada wrong, so not sure how that can be the defining moment for Canada's hockey history.

If anything, I would say it was the 87 Canada Cup ahead of the 72 Summit Series. After the loss in 81, then winning in 84, 87 confirmed their place at the top of the International Hockey world.

It's already been explained multiple times. It's up to you if you choose not to believe it, but the '72 team was named Canadian team of the century in a poll of Canadian sportswriters and editors.

 

[rfournier103]

Some pretty interesting replies here. Thank you all.

I have to say that as someone who is not a Canadian, I found myself cheering hard for Canada when I watched "Cold War on Ice" for the first time. One of the best sports movies I have ever seen - documentary or otherwise.

I have heard it said by some that Canada's victory over the Soviets was the greatest moment in the nation's history. Not Canadian sports history - but ALL of it... I am blown away every time I hear that. Bigger than any achievement in Canadian medicine, literature, the fine arts, or scholarship? Bigger than any Canadian victory on a REAL battlefield?

Just HOW big was the Summit Series really? Having read the replies, it seems that the Summit Series and the Gold Medal are kind of apples and oranges. That seems to be the consensus.

 

[Macman]

Some pretty interesting replies here. Thank you all.

I have to say that as someone who is not a Canadian, I found myself cheering hard for Canada when I watched "Cold War on Ice" for the first time. One of the best sports movies I have ever seen - documentary or otherwise.

I have heard it said by some that Canada's victory over the Soviets was the greatest moment in the nation's history. Not Canadian sports history - but ALL of it... I am blown away every time I hear that. Bigger than any achievement in Canadian medicine, literature, the fine arts, or scholarship? Bigger than any Canadian victory on a REAL battlefield?

Just HOW big was the Summit Series really? Having read the replies, it seems that the Summit Series and the Gold Medal are kind of apples and oranges. That seems to be the consensus.

It just shows you the hold hockey has on this country. It's kind of silly when you think about it, but the Summit Series really was a generational high-water mark. It was a coming of age for boomers. It was a "where were you?" kind of experience, rightly or wrongly, and in that sense it's kind of laughable. Those kinds of this are usually reserved for things like moon landings or assassinations, but not here.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Some pretty interesting replies here. Thank you all.

I have to say that as someone who is not a Canadian, I found myself cheering hard for Canada when I watched "Cold War on Ice" for the first time. One of the best sports movies I have ever seen - documentary or otherwise.

I have heard it said by some that Canada's victory over the Soviets was the greatest moment in the nation's history. Not Canadian sports history - but ALL of it... I am blown away every time I hear that. Bigger than any achievement in Canadian medicine, literature, the fine arts, or scholarship? Bigger than any Canadian victory on a REAL battlefield?

Just HOW big was the Summit Series really? Having read the replies, it seems that the Summit Series and the Gold Medal are kind of apples and oranges. That seems to be the consensus.

That is simply not true. But for whatever reason we allow ourselves to wave the flag a little higher for that event than we do for real national achievements.

 

[rfournier103]

That is simply not true.

I believe you. I don't think it's fair to many Canadians who have achieved tremendous things to be overshadowed by 8 hockey games in September 1972.

But for whatever reason we allow ourselves to wave the flag a little higher for that event than we do for real national achievements.

And that's a pity.

 

[VanIslander]

The 2002 Olympics!

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

From what I'm told, Today's generation in Canada and anyone born after the 80's mid 80's just views the Summit series as a historic win against the Russians, nothing more since it's hard to understand what the World was like then.

2010 takes the cake in terms of Hockey. It was in the Olympics, the World's most prestigious event. In Canada. Entire World watching.

I mean in the present generation of Canadians I'd love to see how many even know what team Paul Henderson played on in the nhl.

Depends when your born I guess.

 

[VMBM]

2010 takes the cake in terms of Hockey. It was in the Olympics, the World's most prestigious event. In Canada. Entire World watching.

A slight exaggeration there... outside a few countries (mostly Canada and Finland, then Sweden, Russia?), the world at large doesn't give a damn about hockey really.

There's only one hockey game/series in history that people generally know about or remember, and that's the Miracle on Ice in 1980... and even that wasn't watched by the entire world when it happened or anything like that... it became a big thing only after it happened.

 

[JackSlater]

From what I'm told, Today's generation in Canada and anyone born after the 80's mid 80's just views the Summit series as a historic win against the Russians, nothing more since it's hard to understand what the World was like then.

2010 takes the cake in terms of Hockey. It was in the Olympics, the World's most prestigious event. In Canada. Entire World watching.

I mean in the present generation of Canadians I'd love to see how many even know what team Paul Henderson played on in the nhl.

Depends when your born I guess.

Those are your assumptions. People who were not alive at the time of the Summit Series obviously have a more personal attachment to the event that they witnessed, but even most people who were not alive at the time realize that objectively 1972 is bigger. The Olympics are not the default biggest event for hockey, so that doesn't really take away anything from 1972. As far as Henderson's NHL team, it's completely irrelevant. Pretty much everyone knows him because of the significance of his goal. That they may now know his NHL team only signifies how big the goal was.

 

[Yakushev72]

Those are your assumptions. People who were not alive at the time of the Summit Series obviously have a more personal attachment to the event that they witnessed, but even most people who were not alive at the time realize that objectively 1972 is bigger. The Olympics are not the default biggest event for hockey, so that doesn't really take away anything from 1972. As far as Henderson's NHL team, it's completely irrelevant. Pretty much everyone knows him because of the significance of his goal. That they may now know his NHL team only signifies how big the goal was.

Two individuals carried Canada on their shoulders in the 1972 series - Henderson and Phil Esposito. Henderson's impossible goal at the end of Game 7, in which defenders were hanging off of him and he let go a bullet shot while falling to the ice, literally prevented the Series from finishing as a tie, which would have caused it to rank No. 119 on the list of Canadian hockey events. In addition to also scoring the winning goal in Game 8, his single-handed brilliance constantly kept Canada afloat while things weren't looking good throughout the series.

 

[JackSlater]

Two individuals carried Canada on their shoulders in the 1972 series - Henderson and Phil Esposito. Henderson's impossible goal at the end of Game 7, in which defenders were hanging off of him and he let go a bullet shot while falling to the ice, literally prevented the Series from finishing as a tie, which would have caused it to rank No. 119 on the list of Canadian hockey events. In addition to also scoring the winning goal in Game 8, his single-handed brilliance constantly kept Canada afloat while things weren't looking good throughout the series.

It's true that Henderson's goal actually overshadows how good he actually was throughout the series. For Canada Esposito, Henderson, Park and Clarke absolutely carried the team. Similarly, in Canada anyway, Kharlamov and Tretiak overshadow the impressive contributions of other top Soviet players (like Yakushev and Vasiliev) in the series.

 

[Yakushev72]

It's true that Henderson's goal actually overshadows how good he actually was throughout the series. For Canada Esposito, Henderson, Park and Clarke absolutely carried the team. Similarly, in Canada anyway, Kharlamov and Tretiak overshadow the impressive contributions of other top Soviet players (like Yakushev and Vasiliev) in the series.

As I recall, Yakushev was the tournament's leading scorer. Clarke broke Kharlamov's ankle with a slash in Game 6, and although he made an appearance in Game 8, he could barely skate.

 

[MastuhNinks]

A slight exaggeration there... outside a few countries (mostly Canada and Finland, then Sweden, Russia?), the world at large doesn't give a damn about hockey really.

There's only one hockey game/series in history that people generally know about or remember, and that's the Miracle on Ice in 1980... and even that wasn't watched by the entire world when it happened or anything like that... it became a big thing only after it happened.

You're underselling the reach of the Olympics, the gold medal game is the climax of the Winter Olympics, whether countries give a damn about hockey or not they still pay attention to it. The Winter Olympics aren't as big as the Summer Olympics but I guarantee you people were watching the game across Europe and some even in Asia.


The Olympic hockey tournament will always have some attention from non-hockey fans, it's the biggest reason why I think it would be a mistake for the NHL to replace Olympic participation with the World Cup of Hockey (which only hockey fans will watch).

Now, to hockey. Lumme revealed that hockey accounted for 2,465 hours of worldwide coverage during the Olympics. The gold-medal game between Canada and the United States was, quite simply, the single most watched hockey game in history. More than 114 million people around the world watched Sidney Crosby score in overtime to give Canada home gold.

By comparison, Lumme noted, the worldwide numbers for the 2010 and 2009 Super Bowl were 110 and 106 million, respectively. The most recent UEFA Cup final reached 106 million. In short, Lumme noted, “Olympic hockey is right up there with some of the biggest events in the world.”

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/ne...players-more-globally-famous-than-ever-before

 

[JackSlater]

As I recall, Yakushev was the tournament's leading scorer. Clarke broke Kharlamov's ankle with a slash in Game 6, and although he made an appearance in Game 8, he could barely skate.

Yakushev had the most points for the Soviets. Esposito had the most points in the tournament officially, but I believe there are many errors in the stats. Ideally Yakushev would get more credit for his performance. Clarke certainly broke Kharlamov's ankle, but he was also easily top three among Canada's most effective forwards.

 

[Theokritos]

Henderson's impossible goal at the end of Game 7, in which defenders were hanging off of him and he let go a bullet shot while falling to the ice, literally prevented the Series from finishing as a tie, which would have caused it to rank No. 119 on the list of Canadian hockey events.

No way. It wouldn't be #1, but it would still be remembered as one of the most important events in Canadian hockey history, the biggest shock and most memorable defeat of all times.

 

[Yakushev72]

No way. It wouldn't be #1, but it would still be remembered as one of the most important events in Canadian hockey history, the biggest shock and most memorable defeat of all times.

Actually, I didn't mean that to be taken literally as the No. 119 hockey event in Canadian history!

 

[Theokritos]

Actually, I didn't mean that to be taken literally as the No. 119 hockey event in Canadian history!

I would have replied the same if you said No. 117 though.

 

[VMBM]

It's true that Henderson's goal actually overshadows how good he actually was throughout the series. For Canada Esposito, Henderson, Park and Clarke absolutely carried the team. Similarly, in Canada anyway, Kharlamov and Tretiak overshadow the impressive contributions of other top Soviet players (like Yakushev and Vasiliev) in the series.

I would give some credit to all of Team Canada's defencemen too... even a secondary guy like Gary Bergman played very reliably in the series. Serge Savard did not play in all the games (slightly injured), but he was brilliant in most of the games that he played; controlled the tempo very well and fooled the Soviets many times with the Spinarama move. He was not a huge factor in game 8 though.
Anyway, no matter how silly the Canadian defence was occasionally made to look in Canada, in the end they played much better than the Soviet defence IMO.

I'm not sure if Yakushev was overshadowed by Kharlamov and Tretiak. Maybe initially, but in the last 3 games or so people certainly started to notice him, including the Canadian broadcasting team. I think many Canadian hockey fans also considered him the best Soviet skater in the series. Quite rightly too, since we don't know how great a healthy Kharlamov would have been in the last 3 games. As it is, Yakushev was the best Soviet player in the series overall. Mikhailov was terrific in Canada, but was ineffective in Russia. The Yakushev-Shadrin-Anisin line (with Lyapkin and Lutchenko on defence) was USSR's be all and end all in Moscow... from the 6th game on, they scored nearly all of their goals and allowed only 1 goal, I think. Even Phil Esposito was a disaster against them.

 

[JackSlater]

I would give some credit to all of Team Canada's defencemen too... even a secondary guy like Gary Bergman played very reliably in the series. Serge Savard did not play in all the games (slightly injured), but he was brilliant in most of the games that he played; controlled the tempo very well and fooled the Soviets many times with the Spinarama move. He was not a huge factor in game 8 though.
Anyway, no matter how silly the Canadian defence was occasionally made to look in Canada, in the end they played much better than the Soviet defence IMO.

I'm not sure if Yakushev was overshadowed by Kharlamov and Tretiak. Maybe initially, but in the last 3 games or so people certainly started to notice him, including the Canadian broadcasting team. I think many Canadian hockey fans also considered him the best Soviet skater in the series. Quite rightly too, since we don't know how great a healthy Kharlamov would have been in the last 3 games. As it is, Yakushev was the best Soviet player in the series overall. Mikhailov was terrific in Canada, but was ineffective in Russia. The Yakushev-Shadrin-Anisin line (with Lyapkin and Lutchenko on defence) was USSR's be all and end all in Moscow... from the 6th game on, they scored nearly all of their goals and allowed only 1 goal, I think. Even Phil Esposito was a disaster against them.

Yes the Canadian defencemen carried the team for the most part. That's the only area in which Canada was better. Park's performance is very underrated (easily the best defenceman in the series) but the rest were solid too. I believe Canada only lost the three games in which Savard did not play. As for Yakushev, he had a lot of fans from that time who sort of overrate him now, but now most fans only think about Kharlamov and Tretiak.

I think for many Canadian fans it is easier to just give a huge amount of credit to the goaltender (Tretiak in this case, who I don't find was particularly good in the series) rather than acknowledge that the whole opposing team went toe to toe with Canada. This can be seen in discussion of the 1998 Czechs as well, since most Canadians will tell you that Hasek carried the Czechs past Canada singlehandedly, even though the Czechs actually outplayed Canada for the first 50 minutes.

 

[Reindl87]

From an outside perspective the biggest win for Canada has to be the 2014 Olympics.

In that tournament the Candians dominated and left no doubt who the best hockey nation was. It was a demosntration, a masterpiece.

1972: The Canadians got a lucky escape against a Soviet team that prior to the event nobody was really giving a chance.

That series by no means proved that Canada was the best hockey nation.

Especially given the fact that the Soviets kicked Canadas ass 2 years later.

Canada Cup 1987?
Canada went life and death against the Soviet in a home tournament that heavily favoured the Canadians. Not all that impressive.

2002?
A legit gold medal for sure.
But all you had to do is win two games really. Mehh, am i supposed to be impressed?

2010:
A must win Gold situation for Canada, and the ydelivered in the end. But again, it was a lot closer than it should have been given the circumstances. A very emotional win for sure, but from an outside objective perspective. Not that special.

2014 is a totally different story. Canadas steamrolled over the competition on Russian ice. That was the real deal.

 

[NyQuil]

2014 is a totally different story. Canadas steamrolled over the competition on Russian ice. That was the real deal.

Well, it raises questions about the level of competition.

Again, the word "biggest" is clearly the issue here.

Most dominant? Maybe.

That US game was pretty close, at least in terms of the score.

 

[JackSlater]

From an outside perspective the biggest win for Canada has to be the 2014 Olympics.

In that tournament the Candians dominated and left no doubt who the best hockey nation was. It was a demosntration, a masterpiece.

1972: The Canadians got a lucky escape against a Soviet team that prior to the event nobody was really giving a chance.

That series by no means proved that Canada was the best hockey nation.

Especially given the fact that the Soviets kicked Canadas ass 2 years later.

Canada Cup 1987?
Canada went life and death against the Soviet in a home tournament that heavily favoured the Canadians. Not all that impressive.

2002?
A legit gold medal for sure.
But all you had to do is win two games really. Mehh, am i supposed to be impressed?

2010:
A must win Gold situation for Canada, and the ydelivered in the end. But again, it was a lot closer than it should have been given the circumstances. A very emotional win for sure, but from an outside objective perspective. Not that special.

2014 is a totally different story. Canadas steamrolled over the competition on Russian ice. That was the real deal.

You have some valid points, but I am certain that most people in Canada would put 2014 at the bottom out of the events you listed. 2014 may be the most impressive, but most people find adversity to be a big factor in what is the biggest win.