Does this tournament mean anything to Russia?

[Mehar]

The World Cup was actually a lot of fun until the latter stages of the tournament which were boring. And of course it has no prestige at all.

The Olympics (which is not a best on best) has no prestige as well. This last World Cup had little prestige, because they made a Team Europe, and a Team NA (23 and under), that hurt the USA a lot. For the next World Cup, there should be no Team Europe or Team NA. Germany and Slovakia, should be represented in the next World Cup, or it would be another joke, like this Olympic tournament.

 

[Fantomas]

The Olympics (which is not a best on best) has no prestige as well.

Incorrect.

 

[Yakushev72]

Tell Canadians that their 1952 and earlier golds aren't as meaningful as 2002, 2010 and 2014. And they'd agree.

Under any scenario, the Olympics are never a best on best because they never offer a conclusive, comprehensive champion. The Stanley Cup with a best-of-7 format offers a champion that has beaten a rival 4 of 7 games. The Olympic games are anecdotal because you play a lot of weaker teams before playing a few games against the stronger teams. Too small a sample size to claim world supremacy. Olympic Gold Medalist will suffice!

 

[Zine]

Tell Canadians that their 1952 and earlier golds aren't as meaningful as 2002, 2010 and 2014. And they'd agree.

People value things differently? No way!!!!!

 

[JackSlater]

I can understand why Canadians and Americans are not going to be attracted to an Olympic tournament where their odds of success are small, but why is it such a prime emotional need to try to bring the Russians and others down by enforcing your standards to belittle the tournament? Why not just not watch, and not lose a lot of pubic hair over it by making a great effort to think of various rationales for devaluing it? Where does all that get you? Every Canadian knew that the NHL was going to boycott the Olympics, so why have a baby over it? Accept the reality of it!

This Olympic Gold will have a very positive value for Russian hockey, because kids will focus on heroes who overcame all the negative branding that came with the doping stuff, which largely didn't affect hockey, and won a Gold Medal to make Russians proud. TV will be covered with images of the celebration and the medal ceremony. It was also a substantial boost for the prestige of the Russian-based KHL, whose player were most visible throughout the tournament. People around the World will want to know more about not just Datsyuk and Kovalchuk, but young stars like Gusev, Kaprizov, and Gavrikov. Also, this should give German hockey a big boost, and if the Deutschland ever started building rinks and training coaches, look out World! North American hockey didn't get much out of the Olympics, but Russia and Europe certainly did!

Again, it is not about the odds of success but the level of the players and teams. The World Cup (soccer) is big in Canada even though Canada will never have a hope to win it in this lifetime, while the gold cup, that Canada has at least a prayer of winning, is far less popular. One has the world's best, the other has a lower level at which Canada can compete. USA has the same situation. Canada didn't put much value in the Olympics even in the days when it was an overwhelming favourite in the early years, for reasons already outlined numerous times. It is what it is, and it doesn't take any deal of great effort to recognize the low value the tournament has. HFboards posters from Russia are inevitably going to enjoy it however and I certainly doubt that any North American posts, pubic hair losses (?) or appeals to reality are going to change that. The question posed in the OP was never really in question of course.

Good luck with your bold dreams for the KHL as well.

Tell Canadians that their 1952 and earlier golds aren't as meaningful as 2002, 2010 and 2014. And they'd agree.

That would imply that context matters in assessing the value of a championship. What a strange concept. It can't possibly be true.

Under any scenario, the Olympics are never a best on best because they never offer a conclusive, comprehensive champion. The Stanley Cup with a best-of-7 format offers a champion that has beaten a rival 4 of 7 games. The Olympic games are anecdotal because you play a lot of weaker teams before playing a few games against the stronger teams. Too small a sample size to claim world supremacy. Olympic Gold Medalist will suffice!

Ah yes, very convenient given the very poor best on best record of some nations. Best on best never existed, except for the various times when it obviously did when the best of some nations played the best of other nations. If you are looking for conclusiveness then it will never happen obviously. A best of seven is good, though a best of nine would be better and a best of 29 would be better still. I assume now that you are a fan of the Canada/World Cups, which in several instances at least gave a best of three final. Interesting.

 

[Zine]

No the reason it matters is because it’s the best players in the world playing the sport against other best players from a nation. It’s the highest level of competition.

Not really a complicated concept as to why best on best matters more.

Nonetheless, not Russia’s fault the NHL was dumb and didn’t allow their players to go and congrats to Russia on the win in a great gold medal game.

Wait a second. If best on best matters more, why do NHL fans not attribute more value to current SC winners than those of the past? The NHL did not have a monopoly on the world's elite talent when the Iron Curtain was up. SC playoffs were hardly best v best competitions, certainly not compared to today.

Should all the winners in the 70s and 80s have an asterisks next to them? Of course not.

The shoe is on the other foot here. This is an example of North Americans ascribing a fixed value of prestige to a competition regardless of competition level.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Wait a second. If best on best matters more, why do NHL fans not attribute more value to current SC winners than those of the past? The NHL did not have a monopoly on the world's elite talent when the Iron Curtain was up. SC playoffs were hardly best v best competitions, certainly not compared to today.

Should all the winners in the 70s and 80s have an asterisks next to them? Of course not.

The shoe is on the other foot here. This is an example of North Americans ascribing a fixed value of prestige to a competition regardless of competition level.

Every team in the NHL were playing under the same rules.

 

[JackSlater]

Wait a second. If best on best matters more, why do NHL fans not attribute more value to current SC winners than those of the past? The NHL did not have a monopoly on the world's elite talent when the Iron Curtain was up. SC playoffs were hardly best v best competitions, certainly not compared to today.

Should all the winners in the 70s and 80s have an asterisks next to them? Of course not.

The shoe is on the other foot here. This is an example of North Americans ascribing a fixed value of prestige to a competition regardless of competition level.

I almost get tired from watching the dancing in this thread. It's obvious why best on best matters more and why beating the best matters more. People never really called the Stanley Cup best on best as the term has generally always been reserved for international competition. If you want to make a case that those Stanley Cups in the 1970s and 1980s are weaker due to the missed competition you have a valid point, with other factors like over-expansion being factors as well. Certainly in some years you could argue that the Stanley Cup champion was not the strongest domestic team in the world. None of that has anything to do with the obvious or with the portion of the post that you quoted though.

Again not that domestic competition ties into what best on best generally refs to, but make no mistake, if the NHL suddenly became surpassed by another league that had all of the best players and teams the value of the Stanley Cup would drop massively.

 

[Yakushev72]

Again, it is not about the odds of success but the level of the players and teams. The World Cup (soccer) is big in Canada even though Canada will never have a hope to win it in this lifetime, while the gold cup, that Canada has at least a prayer of winning, is far less popular. One has the world's best, the other has a lower level at which Canada can compete. USA has the same situation. Canada didn't put much value in the Olympics even in the days when it was an overwhelming favourite in the early years, for reasons already outlined numerous times. It is what it is, and it doesn't take any deal of great effort to recognize the low value the tournament has. HFboards posters from Russia are inevitably going to enjoy it however and I certainly doubt that any North American posts, pubic hair losses (?) or appeals to reality are going to change that. The question posed in the OP was never really in question of course.

Good luck with your bold dreams for the KHL as well.



That would imply that context matters in assessing the value of a championship. What a strange concept. It can't possibly be true.



Ah yes, very convenient given the very poor best on best record of some nations. Best on best never existed, except for the various times when it obviously did when the best of some nations played the best of other nations. If you are looking for conclusiveness then it will never happen obviously. A best of seven is good, though a best of nine would be better and a best of 29 would be better still. I assume now that you are a fan of the Canada/World Cups, which in several instances at least gave a best of three final. Interesting.

There was something on the order of a best on best in the 1972 series. 8 games, 4 at home, 4 away from home. If it would have been limited to a single game, as in the Olympics, the USSR would have been proclaimed to have world supremacy based on their 7-3 win over Canada. If you look at the 1972 series and the Challenge Cup Series and all of the Canada Cups, it in fact showed that the Soviets and Canada were dead equal, although Soviet fans would likely complain that after 1972, all the remaining matches were home games for Canada. Russian hockey declined after 1991, but even then in Olympic meetings during the NHL era, Canada and Russia split two meetings 1-1. And Russia wasn't even one of the top 4. The term best on best is meaningless in the real world.

 

[Yakushev72]

I almost get tired from watching the dancing in this thread. It's obvious why best on best matters more and why beating the best matters more. People never really called the Stanley Cup best on best as the term has generally always been reserved for international competition. If you want to make a case that those Stanley Cups in the 1970s and 1980s are weaker due to the missed competition you have a valid point, with other factors like over-expansion being factors as well. Certainly in some years you could argue that the Stanley Cup champion was not the strongest domestic team in the world. None of that has anything to do with the obvious or with the portion of the post that you quoted though.

Again not that domestic competition ties into what best on best generally refs to, but make no mistake, if the NHL suddenly became surpassed by another league that had all of the best players and teams the value of the Stanley Cup would drop massively.

It seems inane to complain that you spent countless hours watching games and preparing posts about hockey that you didn't consider worthy of your attention. Instead of torturing yourself over and over, you could have just decided not to watch. Russian fans enjoyed the hockey because it was very entertaining, and because, in the end, they draped Gold Medals around the Russian's necks. You should consider switching your allegiance to the KHL, because the KHL doesn't sabotage its fans by boycotting the Olympics, the way the NHL does!

 

[Hanji]

Can any native speakers comment on the significance of what's happening at around 9:55?

 

[sandysan]

It seems inane to complain that you spent countless hours watching games and preparing posts about hockey that you didn't consider worthy of your attention. Instead of torturing yourself over and over, you could have just decided not to watch. Russian fans enjoyed the hockey because it was very entertaining, and because, in the end, they draped Gold Medals around the Russian's necks. You should consider switching your allegiance to the KHL, because the KHL doesn't sabotage its fans by boycotting the Olympics, the way the NHL does!

No they sabotage hockey fans worldwide by insisting that their brand of hockey is good enough to fool the rubes into thinking it's something it's not ( first tier).

If that describes someone you know, good.

To be the man you have to beat the man. whoooooooooooooo.

 

[JackSlater]

There was something on the order of a best on best in the 1972 series. 8 games, 4 at home, 4 away from home. If it would have been limited to a single game, as in the Olympics, the USSR would have been proclaimed to have world supremacy based on their 7-3 win over Canada. If you look at the 1972 series and the Challenge Cup Series and all of the Canada Cups, it in fact showed that the Soviets and Canada were dead equal, although Soviet fans would likely complain that after 1972, all the remaining matches were home games for Canada. Russian hockey declined after 1991, but even then in Olympic meetings during the NHL era, Canada and Russia split two meetings 1-1. And Russia wasn't even one of the top 4. The term best on best is meaningless in the real world.

I don't know why you are telling me this. It is fairly obvious that USSR and Canada were very close over the period you mentioned, honestly I would lean toward USSR being stronger as a team from the late 70s to the late 80s. Fortunately we have more games than just Canada Russia games (we also have the 2004 World Cup where Canada beat Russia in the preliminary round) and can look at tournament results, which are rather lopsided. Of course as I have said many times before, I think in this very thread, I don't think that the winning team is always necessarily the better team as that is frankly a stupid way to view competition. I will say that it is unfortunate that the top Canadian and Soviet players didn't get more chances to play during the Soviet peak and before Russia descended from that level. The 1972 through 1988 Olympics tournaments would have been very interesting.

It seems inane to complain that you spent countless hours watching games and preparing posts about hockey that you didn't consider worthy of your attention. Instead of torturing yourself over and over, you could have just decided not to watch. Russian fans enjoyed the hockey because it was very entertaining, and because, in the end, they draped Gold Medals around the Russian's necks. You should consider switching your allegiance to the KHL, because the KHL doesn't sabotage its fans by boycotting the Olympics, the way the NHL does!

While I most certainly appreciate your concern, you don't have to worry that I tortured myself or even that I then watched the tournament. I did see part of the game between Canada and Switzerland and part of the game between Finland and someone, it seemed like hockey at a sufficient level. I don't doubt that people enjoyed it. I heard a woman today actually, Canadian, remark that she enjoyed the men's games a lot. I don't think enjoying the games was ever really in issue here. I certainly expected that Russian fans would enjoy it. As for the KHL, I'm afraid that I will be sticking with the NHL product despite how disagreeable the NHL as an entity can be at times. Too many advantages.

 

[VVP]

The final they are telling had the biggest TV audience in Russia. So yes, it means a lot.