Does this tournament mean anything to Russia?

[dubey]

This is mostly a question for Russian posters.

In Canada, no really one cares about it. No one is talking about it or watching the games. No one can name 3 people on the Canadian Roster.

So when Russia wins the tournament, will it be celebrated in Russia?

lol

Kind of hard to watch when the games are on when most people with jobs are sleeping. "No one is talking about it" is even more hilarious though

 

[Bear12Good]

I think Russia is the only country with a state sponsored doping program though.

What do you think about norwegian astmatics?

 

[NyQuil]

Counter point: Neither the 1980 nor 1984 Olympics featured all the best athletes. From what I recall medals at both Olympics were highly celebrated in the countries of the winners with some medal winners becoming celebrities and household names in their respective countries.

Maybe at the time, but not anymore.

Everyone knows that Canada’s best result in Los Angeles was the result of the boycott.

It’s an asterisk that people still talk about today when comparing medal totals in the media here in Canada during the Summer Games.

Another example, a number of the best European nations chose not to participate at the 1930 FIFA World Cup because it was then a new tournament and travel to Uruguay seemed too arduous for it to be worth it. Uruguay won that tournament and to this day the absence of a significant % of the best players does not seem to be much more than a footnote nor is it seen as negating Uruguay's triumph.

And yet the reason I know this as well is because it was explained to me at length when I was living in West Germany growing up.

I think most rational Canadians would say that this tournament is worth something - but like you said, it’s not equivalent to the Word Cup or Euro in football - not without the worlds best.

It’s not really that controversial a position.

But then again, as I said earlier, we don’t have a tournament culture here. We don’t have league cups and FA cups and Spengler Cups and EHTs etc. I personally like the culture of throwing tournaments together but it doesn’t have a lot of traction here.

Even our soccer here follows a North American playoff format.

 

[JackSlater]

Counter point: Neither the 1980 nor 1984 Olympics featured all the best athletes. From what I recall medals at both Olympics were highly celebrated in the countries of the winners with some medal winners becoming celebrities and household names in their respective countries. Another example, a number of the best European nations chose not to participate at the 1930 FIFA World Cup because it was then a new tournament and travel to Uruguay seemed too arduous for it to be worth it. Uruguay won that tournament and to this day the absence of a significant % of the best players does not seem to be much more than a footnote nor is it seen as negating Uruguay's triumph.

Additionally, I think that while winning the Olympic soccer tournament is not seen as big a deal as the World Cup (or the European Championships or Copa America for that matter), it is worth *something* and people certainly take an interest in it. When Germany played Brazil in the 2016 Olympic soccer final, that game ended after midnight and still over 8 million Germans watched it on TV (with a rating of over 40% for that time of night).

I was hoping that the 1980 and 1984 Olympics would come up. In some disciplines the medals from those games are absolutely worth less than they otherwise would be, and anecdotal of course but I have heard some Americans anyway mention that it was disappointing to not compete against the best Soviets in 1984. I have no idea how it was viewed in Europe in either year. Even this is a far cry (on an event by event basis) however from the 2018 hockey tournament in terms of the scope of players missing. The World Cup pre-WW2 is another good example I have seen before, particularly as you noted 1930. It would be ridiculous to value the 1930 World Cup, when several of the best teams and players didn't even bother to show up, as much as the upcoming 2018 World Cup. I have read people cite those initial tournaments as of lower quality than subsequent tournaments, though to be fair I don't know the provenance of the writers.

As far as the second point, I do believe that in Europe the Olympic soccer tournament has some value, but that value is not that high. I even agree with the posters who have said that in Europe the fans tend to value the Olympics regardless to a higher degree than those in North America (there is a reason that most international sports organization comes from Europe.) My issue is the claim that Olympic gold is always just as significant regardless of who plays and is thus always very high, when the soccer example proves that to not be true.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think it's fair to say that it's worth less in objective terms than it would be if all the best performed, but of course there are certainly ways you can stretch that idea where it becomes more controversial. And I think that gets us to the final point on that - meaning is highly subjective. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where if the U.S. had won gold at hockey in these Olympics it would have been spun as a great underdog story and heroic tale. I mean it's not like the best players were there for the Miracle on Ice either..

 

[NyQuil]

It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where if the U.S. had won gold at hockey in these Olympics it would have been spun as a great underdog story and heroic tale. I mean it's not like the best players were there for the Miracle on Ice either..

Meh, the media tried to turn the US women’s victory into some kind of historic event as opposed to the inevitable result of two teams playing for gold every 4 years.

Miracle though? Nah, the political overtones are diminished. But I’ll bet that if the Soviets weren’t allowed to send their top couple of hundred players it would be a different story. Not so much of a Miracle.

The media will spin a story but I don’t think it would necessarily take.

 

[Confucius]

One thing we can be sure of, there will be no Russian anthem played after the game. So it should mean nothing to them.

 

[NyQuil]

One thing we can be sure of, there will be no Russian anthem played after the game. So it should mean nothing to them.

Lol.

It’ll just add to the “us against the world” mystique.

 

[JackSlater]

I think it's fair to say that it's worth less in objective terms than it would be if all the best performed, but of course there are certainly ways you can stretch that idea where it becomes more controversial. And I think that gets us to the final point on that - meaning is highly subjective. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where if the U.S. had won gold at hockey in these Olympics it would have been spun as a great underdog story and heroic tale. I mean it's not like the best players were there for the Miracle on Ice either..

Yes, I think that you are mostly correct here. People are going to value things to varying levels. Your theoretical example of the Americans winning gold is likely very accurate, though it would mostly play well among the non-hockey fans who wouldn't know any better. In USA though the competition level does matter, as seen in the difference in reverence between the 1960 gold medal and the 1980 gold medal. My primary issue pretending that Olympic medals always have the same value regardless of who competes when logically and through the soccer example we know that it isn't true. Some might put a very low value on it and I guess some may even put a high value on it, but to say that it is the same is a ridiculous claim in my eyes.

 

[stampedingviking]

As a Russian, I would feel satisfaction and relief if we won gold. Satisfaction because golds are rare for us this Olympics where some of our best competitors were excluded for BS reasons and relief because I'm tired of us losing when we bring superior rosters. Maybe I would be happier if it was a best-on-best tournament but I'll take what I can.

What I find hypocritical is that people complain about quality of competition but there is a 90 page thread where people discuss women's hockey final. If you forget for a second that players on the ice have boobs you'll see that the quality of competition is worse than in U18 tournaments and most of people here don't bother to watch them. I guess inferior hockey on Olympic stage is good enough when your team is top-2 in the tournament.

That is exactly what it boils down to for those whinging about lower quality making the Olympics meaningless.

 

[chokei]

Hopefully it means something to them. It means they were the best hockey team participating in this tournament.

When people are happy about the enthusiasm of the Germans I don't see why they shouldn't be happy about the enthusiasm the Russians have for this tournament. At least Russia is a respectable hockey nation which deserves to win something once in a while for their efforts in my eyes.
People should feel happy that a nation like Russia gets something back once in a while for their love for the game, even if it's just the win of a 2nd class hockey tournament.

It's a shame though that we won't hear the Russian anthem should they win.

 

[stampedingviking]

Or we just don’t care because its meaningless if our best players don’t play.

There isn’t some huge conspiracy it’s not best on best and therefore doesn’t matter nearly as much. The Canada Cup in the 80’s was more important to us then the Olympics for the same reason.

In other words, just because you don't have the best players and aren't favourites, you're not interested.

Generalizing, that's a typical North American attitude.

 

[Rob]

Czech Republic being a much better team than Germany compared to Canada's team in 98 and Canada's team in 18.

.....and Canada's team's in those past tournaments were much better since they were using NHL players.

Fact is this is no considered a huge failure in Canada because there were no expectations going into the tournament.

 

[NyQuil]

That is exactly what it boils down to for those whinging about lower quality making the Olympics meaningless.

It certainly explains why the Canadian female player believed her silver medal to be meaningless.

 

[stampedingviking]

North America is the Mecca of hockey

Only to North Americans, the rest of the world recognizes that there is hockey in other countries. There are a lot more countries playing hockey than just Canada and the USA.

 

[Rob]

Does the IIHF recognize OAR as being Russia? For example will they move up in the rankings for winning gold?

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

In other words, just because you don't have the best players and aren't favourites, you're not interested.

Generalizing, that's a typical North American attitude.

No, that's not all what I said. The tournament isn't best on best and that's just not as interesting or important. It has nothing to do with being favourites. I'm sorry that I don't find watching a team that would get beat by most AHL teams exciting.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Does the IIHF recognize OAR as being Russia? For example will they move up in the rankings for winning gold?

I don't see how they could legally but who knows?

 

[JackSlater]

In other words, just because you don't have the best players and aren't favourites, you're not interested.

Generalizing, that's a typical North American attitude.

I again wonder if this is willful ignorance or just a poor attempt at debate. Do you not see the difference between what that poster said and what you said? It's a very weak attempt at debate to ascribe different positions someone.

1. Canadians primarily care about hockey when the best are there.

Is obviously very different than

2. Canadians only care when Canada is the favourite.

Again, I wonder if this is genuine inability to grasp a simple concent or pure disingenuity. As has already been pointed out, Canadians have never made a big deal about winning various Olympic gold medals back in the 1950s and earlier when the competition was so low that even Canadian amateurs could win gold medals. Canadians much prefer the WJC, where Canada is impacted by roster restrictions more than any other country historically, far more than the Ivan Hlinka where Canada enjoys an advantageous position compared to other countries. If you cannot grasp the concept of Canadians primarily valuing hockey when the best are playing that's fine, but there is no need to lie about what people are actually saying.

 

[stampedingviking]

No, that's not all what I said. The tournament isn't best on best and that's just not as interesting or important. It has nothing to do with being favourites. I'm sorry that I don't find watching a team that would get beat by most AHL teams exciting.

What's important is the badge on the front of the shirt, not the name on the back.

North Americans don't seem to get that (or at least a large proportion on here don't).

 

[stampedingviking]

I again wonder if this is willful ignorance or just a poor attempt at debate. Do you not see the difference between what that poster said and what you said? It's a very weak attempt at debate to ascribe different positions someone.

1. Canadians primarily care about hockey when the best are there.

Is obviously very different than

2. Canadians only care when Canada is the favourite.

Again, I wonder if this is genuine inability to grasp a simple concent or pure disingenuity. As has already been pointed out, Canadians have never made a big deal about winning various Olympic gold medals back in the 1950s and earlier when the competition was so low that even Canadian amateurs could win gold medals. Canadians much prefer the WJC, where Canada is impacted by roster restrictions more than any other country historically, far more than the Ivan Hlinka where Canada enjoys an advantageous position compared to other countries. If you cannot grasp the concept of Canadians primarily valuing hockey when the best are playing that's fine, but there is no need to lie about what people are actually saying.

Why do Canadians care about having the best players there? Oh yes, they'd be the favourites.

 

[adsfan]

Only to North Americans, the rest of the world recognizes that there is hockey in other countries. There are a lot more countries playing hockey than just Canada and the USA.

This is just crap! I live in Milwaukee. The local AHL team has Russians, Finns and Swedes just about every season.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

What's important is the badge on the front of the shirt, not the name on the back.

North Americans don't seem to get that (or at least a large proportion on here don't).

You're clearly just looking for attention, I and many others have made it clear if it's not best and best we don't care because the level of hockey is worse and you just keep making the same idiotic talking point.

We want to watch the best complete not a bunch of rejects who can't make it in the NHL.

 

[Jon Riley]

I do not see how anyone can claim to know what a "country (or even a whole continent) is/want/think" without feeling stupid.
And as an extention, I do not see how someone can not understand that "value" is a very subjective and mutable concept.
The value of something is what people put in it. Participant first, then fanbase or spectators or whoever cares to have an opinion about it.

The superbowl, in my surrounding is valued less than our standard thursday-lunchbreak bouldering game of D.O.N.K.E.Y but that is mainly because we do not even know if this superbowl thing is a single event or a tournament or even the rules of the sport. I do not extrapolate this to the world scale, though, I'm not that stupid.
You shouldn't be either

 

[NyQuil]

Why do Canadians care about having the best players there? Oh yes, they'd be the favourites.

We still manage to lose.

You’re just being obtuse.