Eurizione also retired because as he put it, there was nothing else he could accomplish in hockey bigger than what he had just been a part of. Also those in the state of MN had heard of several of the players on the team in High School through the Minnesota State Hockey Tournament which was at that time(and still is) the biggest high school hockedy tourney in the country.(and is considered by many to be one of the best HS tourneys anywhere in the US(even today with 2 classes in MN))
How big of a miracle was the "Miracle on Ice?"
- Thread starter Sh00terMcGavin
- Start date
- Status
Pepe Silvia
Registered User
do you believe in miracles?
YESSSSSSSSSSSS
huge upset, even though some canadians or europeans don't wanna admit it.
the soviets dominated the olympics for two decades and lost to some college kids who were put together a few months before the games. does no one remember the soviets embarrassing the nhl all stars? jim craig played great and was the main reason the us won, but the americans still deserved it
YESSSSSSSSSSSS
huge upset, even though some canadians or europeans don't wanna admit it.
the soviets dominated the olympics for two decades and lost to some college kids who were put together a few months before the games. does no one remember the soviets embarrassing the nhl all stars? jim craig played great and was the main reason the us won, but the americans still deserved it
dan1el
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2011
- 2,737
- 0
I don't know if that cuts it. I wasn't around either, but I remember my dad telling me a while ago that it was like my AA team beating the Devils, who had just won the the cup.
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
There was a bigger talent disparity in the 1976 game. However, it was the first game of the tournament, not as much was at stake.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
It's overblown. Partially because the Soviets are a bit overrated and partially because everything the US achieves at the Olympics tends to get a bit overblown (result of having a massive sports media industry that thrives on pathos and sentimentalism).
It was one of the bigger upsets at the top level of international hockey, but people need to get a grip. The U.S. team had several very good hockey players and was simply a very good team. They had gone undefeated in a pool which also had Sweden and the Czechoslovaks. They in fact blew out the Czechoslovaks who had the Stastnys and who beat Canada pretty handily in this tounament. Aside from the Soviets they beat Finland in the final round as well. In other words, just based on the tournament it's not unfair to say they were the 2nd best team in the tournament.
So the 2nd best team beat the best team, that's hardly unheard of. Yes, the Soviets were clearly the best team, but both Finland and Canada gave them good games (it actually took late 3rd period Soviet surges to beat both) and it's not like this was a Canada with a star-studded roster. They also had to deal with the classic enemy of the favorite: over-confidence, complacency, arrogance. The U.S. team were simply much better than you would have guessed from just reading the names and where they played and the Soviets had come off a series of victories and had the air of invincibility. Classic ingredients of sporting upsets really all over but as per usual it's much easier to see after the game than before the game.
It was one of the bigger upsets at the top level of international hockey, but people need to get a grip. The U.S. team had several very good hockey players and was simply a very good team. They had gone undefeated in a pool which also had Sweden and the Czechoslovaks. They in fact blew out the Czechoslovaks who had the Stastnys and who beat Canada pretty handily in this tounament. Aside from the Soviets they beat Finland in the final round as well. In other words, just based on the tournament it's not unfair to say they were the 2nd best team in the tournament.
So the 2nd best team beat the best team, that's hardly unheard of. Yes, the Soviets were clearly the best team, but both Finland and Canada gave them good games (it actually took late 3rd period Soviet surges to beat both) and it's not like this was a Canada with a star-studded roster. They also had to deal with the classic enemy of the favorite: over-confidence, complacency, arrogance. The U.S. team were simply much better than you would have guessed from just reading the names and where they played and the Soviets had come off a series of victories and had the air of invincibility. Classic ingredients of sporting upsets really all over but as per usual it's much easier to see after the game than before the game.
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
No one's denying it was a huge upset. But the Soviets of Lake Placid weren't playing like the Soviets of the Challenge Cup. Here's their previous game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVuseI7TmM&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL32B78516C3911DD7
It was a big upset, no doubt. But not as big as some people claim. When you hear people saying it was like a WJC team taking out the Canadian Olympic team, that's ridiculous.
6 or 8 guys off that team went straight to the NHL when the Olympics ended, and over half the squad was playing regularly by the end of the 80-81 season.
That US team was comparatively stronger that the national teams that Switzerland/Germany/Denmark - and maybe even Slovakia - send to the Olympics now, and those teams have given Canada/Russia scares at various points and I think might have won the odd game.
The Americans did an amazing job, but the result in this one game falls mainly on the Russians replacing their superstar goalie with a backup sieve after the first period. Pure over-confident idiocy, and lost the game while outshooting their opposition 40-16. Whoops.
6 or 8 guys off that team went straight to the NHL when the Olympics ended, and over half the squad was playing regularly by the end of the 80-81 season.
That US team was comparatively stronger that the national teams that Switzerland/Germany/Denmark - and maybe even Slovakia - send to the Olympics now, and those teams have given Canada/Russia scares at various points and I think might have won the odd game.
The Americans did an amazing job, but the result in this one game falls mainly on the Russians replacing their superstar goalie with a backup sieve after the first period. Pure over-confident idiocy, and lost the game while outshooting their opposition 40-16. Whoops.
Pepe Silvia
Registered User
nice video. team USA has only two gold medals. let us have some fun lol. and didn't the soviets win the last 4 gold medals before the 1980 games?
i think the win deserves a lot of the hype it gets. it means a lot even to many americans who aren't even hockey fans
LeafsNation75
Registered User
Maybe I feel this way since I am Canadian, but I always thought wouldn't this have been a much better "Miracle" if the United States had beat the Soviets for the Gold Medal and not in the Semi-Final.
Using the 1998 Olympics as an example I think a lot of people expected Canada to win the Gold and no one uses the Czech Republic win against them in the Semi-Final as a "Miracle" There is no doubt that was an upset but that was a Semi-Final win just like the Americans in 1980 and shouldn't people remember those teams for winning the Gold Medal game a lot more?
Using the 1998 Olympics as an example I think a lot of people expected Canada to win the Gold and no one uses the Czech Republic win against them in the Semi-Final as a "Miracle" There is no doubt that was an upset but that was a Semi-Final win just like the Americans in 1980 and shouldn't people remember those teams for winning the Gold Medal game a lot more?
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
America’s iconic broadcaster, Jim McKay, said it would have been like a collection of Canadian college football players beating a Super Bowl team. With all due respect to Mr. McKay, this analogy undersells what the US ice hockey team actually accomplished.
The problem with this analogy is that a Super Bowl champion is a ‘club’ team. The Soviet team was more like a glorified ‘Pro Bowl’ team, an all-star team that consisted of the very best players from both of the National Football League’s two conferences, which trained constantly and had done so together for years. And this opponent would have been playing in one of its most important games (with the winner getting to play for that Winter Olympics’ ice hockey gold medal). That’s who the Americans were up against on that February evening in 1980.
So, the Americans won. But really, how big was this event? one may ask. Consider that Sports Illustrated is probably, by far, the most popular sporting magazine in American culture. I believe the March 3rd, 1980 issue marks the only time in the magazine’s history that no tag-line or heading was written on the SI cover. Words would have diminished its effect. Americans who didn’t know the difference between a face-lift and a face-off were pulled into the drama.
In 1999 Sports Illustrated declared this one game to be the biggest story in American sports in the 20th century. In 2008 the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) declared this game to be the biggest story in the IIHF’s first one hundred years.
Two sources of consequence, both saying that the significance of this one game is measured in terms of centuries..
The problem with this analogy is that a Super Bowl champion is a ‘club’ team. The Soviet team was more like a glorified ‘Pro Bowl’ team, an all-star team that consisted of the very best players from both of the National Football League’s two conferences, which trained constantly and had done so together for years. And this opponent would have been playing in one of its most important games (with the winner getting to play for that Winter Olympics’ ice hockey gold medal). That’s who the Americans were up against on that February evening in 1980.
So, the Americans won. But really, how big was this event? one may ask. Consider that Sports Illustrated is probably, by far, the most popular sporting magazine in American culture. I believe the March 3rd, 1980 issue marks the only time in the magazine’s history that no tag-line or heading was written on the SI cover. Words would have diminished its effect. Americans who didn’t know the difference between a face-lift and a face-off were pulled into the drama.
In 1999 Sports Illustrated declared this one game to be the biggest story in American sports in the 20th century. In 2008 the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) declared this game to be the biggest story in the IIHF’s first one hundred years.
Two sources of consequence, both saying that the significance of this one game is measured in terms of centuries..
Last edited:
Pominville Knows
Registered User
I think it is a pretty good comparison. Not all US players in those age groups were on the team, since they in the NHL at the time had Glenn Resch(Probably american at the time i would say), Rod Langway, Mark Howe, Reed Larson, Paul Holmgren, Mike Eaves, Jack Brownschidle, Curt Fraser, Bob Miller, Richie Dunn, Gordie Roberts amongst others. USA had'nt as good a program back then as today as well.
The american U20 team would get smothered against Team Russias and Team Czech-o-Slovakias best seniors today, and by Team Swedens gold medal team from this year which lacked the appropriate NHL players to somewhat mirror what Sweden put on the ice in the 1980 Olympics(Lacking Salming, Hedberg, NilssonX2 etc etc). Team Finland ****** back then so we can barely count them, as with West Germany and whatever other teams participated. I mean, what did Canada actually bring there lol(Goes checking... Comes back with some future NHLers still being juniors, and some strange blend where some had played for the national team, and only the national team, for several seasons. Others were young players that went nowhere.)
Last edited:
Congratulations, Darth...
Big win for Sweden at home. Loved the gold helmets. I want one. Isn't it surprising, how rarely teams win the IIHFs at home, especially since the pool of true contenders is always so small.
Big win for Sweden at home. Loved the gold helmets. I want one. Isn't it surprising, how rarely teams win the IIHFs at home, especially since the pool of true contenders is always so small.
I'd say the missile crisis was the peak, but things went on an uptick between Afganistan until Glastnost.
Let's be clear here... You mean the Soviets of the 3rd game of the Challenge Cup, which lost to a team in the first game that had been together for days, as opposed to several years.
Nor do you mean the Soviet team that barely won the 2nd game, against that same team that had been literally thrown together.
Game 3 was a blow out. But these things happen. The myth of Soviet 'dominance' has been blown out of proportion by this one game. Had the disparity been as skewed as advertised, the Big Red machine would have decisively won all three games.
I'm not denying that the Soviets had great teams. But the Challenge Cup was very much like the IIHFs and the Olympics of those days - an event that was tilted to their advantage from the start.
The only time the Soviets ever played on truly level terms against other nations' best teams was during the five Canada Cups and the Summit Series of 1972
And how many times did they win there?
Last edited:
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,250
It was a HUGE deal. Mind blowing if you watched it live in real time & action as I did. The greatest game Ive ever watched even 33yrs later, including the 72 Summit Series, all subsequent Canada Cups, World Championships & Olympics, runs to & including SC Finals. Just beyond awesome what Brooks and his collection of American college players achieved. I unlike many had always respected American "amateurs" and the NCAA system through the 70's, that they were "Wild Cards" not to be ever taken lightly. Seriously underrated potential overachievers, always dangerous having played with & against them myself.
More than proved themselves really since time immemorial in terms of the history of the game, be it individual or team play. Put paid to that stamp of a lie. That guys like Jim Craig had a hard time making an adjustment to the professional ranks thereafter to me not all that surprising. They left everything out there, on the ice, frozen in time. Nothing, ever, could possibly surpass that one moment of sublime glory. The most amazing display of team play, guts & sacrifice Ive ever seen, and Ive seen plenty, from the ice, in the stands, on TV. If you ever needed a reason to fall in love with the United States of America, beyond being proud of a neighbour as a Canadian as I was at that time, that was it right there.
With that win they re-wrote the history books, everything on the table from Frankie Brimsek to Jack McCartan & Squaw Valley 1960. A quiet power that anyone who really knew hockey was respectful of, more than well aware of. A sleeping giant. Went to the very core of a lot of peoples ill conceived notions about the game, about talent, about team play. They hung on and won by the very coil of their beings'. Outgunned, outclassed, doesnt matter in the game of hockey. If your willing to sacrifice, never say die as they surely did, you can beat the better or in this case, the very best. Ranks right up there with the raising of the Stars & Stripes at Iwo Jima, JFK's Assassination, the Moon Walk. A seminal moment in history.
Hammer Time
Registered User
- May 3, 2011
- 3,957
- 11
I've never really agreed with the "Tretiak pulled = bad" type of reasoning. Tretiak had just allowed a pair of bad goals in the 1st period, and I think his sv% in the tournament was somewhere around .860 heading into the game.
The USA's top defence pairing that game was Mike Ramsey and Ken Morrow. Both went to the NHL right away, Morrow being a top-4 defenceman for a dynasty team, and Ramsey spent a number of years in Buffalo and is now remembered as among the greatest D-men in Sabres history. Dave Christian, converted to D for this tournament, would play 13 NHL seasons and score 340 goals, and led his team in scoring a few times during his career.
Up front you had Mark Johnson as the #1C, who had a respectable 10 seasons in the NHL with his best offensive seasons in Hartford (during those years he finished 2nd in points only to Ron Francis). His goal scoring rate actually picked up in the playoffs, which suggests he was a good "clutch player".
Also, Pavelich was a (80s-scoring) point per game player in the NHL under Herb Brooks' Rangers. Broten and Christoff would have long NHL careers.
I think you can say that there were around 6-8 guys who were not only NHL regulars but good NHL players from that US team.
Well, at the amateur level there wasn't much difference. Today NCAA smokes the hell out of CIS hockey, even in 1980 I find it hard to believe that CIS or senior amateur hockey in Canada was better than the NCAA.
The USA had the holy grail of upsets obviously, but an amateur Canada team did manage to defeat the Soviets on their home ice, in the Soviets' own tournament (Izvestia) in the mid-80s.
Yep. However USA/USSR has to be the biggest upset which led to the winning team getting a gold medal.
It was a de facto gold medal game since the USA and Soviets were both undefeated going into the game. The Finns wouldn't have won gold if they defeated the USA in the last game of the tournament, while the Soviets would have won gold with a win on Feb. 22.
Imagine a current Swedish under-22 team. Your best players are the likes of Ekman-Larsson, Brodin, Zibanejad, and Silfverberg. And that team won Olympic gold at Sochi. Is that a fair comparison (both age-wise and in the sense that quite a few of the players were already NHL calibre?)
Soviet powerhouse CSKA did lose 6-1 to the Sabres a month before the Olympics, which in hindsight looks like foreshadowing.
VMBM
Hansel?!
Let's forget the Challenge Cup for a moment. In the 1979 WC, the Soviets beat Czechoslovakia 11-1 and 6-1 and Sweden 11-3 and 9-3.
In Lake Placid, already before the Miracle game, they were struggling against teams like Finland (4-2 win but down 1-2 with just 6 minutes left) and (amateur) Canada (6-4 win, but still even in the 3rd period), i.e. arguably against weaker teams than the aforementioned CSSR and SWE. So one can - especially with the help of eye test - definitely suggest that they indeed were in 'slightly' better form in the 1978-79 season than a year later. Why is that so hard to understand, accept, believe etc.?
"The Soviets barely won the 2nd game" - and at the same time, were making the NHL All Stars look very bad, as Scotty Bowman acknowledged. The final score was close, but the game itself wasn't.
I'm sure Alan Eagleson (and John Ziegler) were simply delighted to do them that favour.
The media loves to exaggerate things, but in this case, I don't think so...
It was epic not only because of the David vs Goliath on ice tale, but because of the political state of affairs between the two countries and political ideologies. That is a huge part of what makes it so special.
You can say that the US had some legitimate NHL caliber players on their roster (and they did), but for the most part those guys were depth type players. You can say the Russians had some key guys ageing, but 2 seasons later the Russians were still good enough to blow out the best players in the NHL at the Canada Cup.
In a single game, upsets are a more of a possibility than they otherwise would be in a best of 7 type series, but nonetheless, what happened in Lake Placid was remarkable.
If the Canadian mens basketball team beat the US dream team at the summer Olympics and won the gold medal, it would be absolutely amazing. Some people would offer excuses that the US wasnt at their best, and the Canadians were much better than you might otherwise think, but none of that would matter at all. It would still be a remarkable feat.
Even, in the basketball scenario above, you are leaving the hate between the countries out of the picture (communist Russia vs capitalist USA).
I'm a Cdn by the way.
It was epic not only because of the David vs Goliath on ice tale, but because of the political state of affairs between the two countries and political ideologies. That is a huge part of what makes it so special.
You can say that the US had some legitimate NHL caliber players on their roster (and they did), but for the most part those guys were depth type players. You can say the Russians had some key guys ageing, but 2 seasons later the Russians were still good enough to blow out the best players in the NHL at the Canada Cup.
In a single game, upsets are a more of a possibility than they otherwise would be in a best of 7 type series, but nonetheless, what happened in Lake Placid was remarkable.
If the Canadian mens basketball team beat the US dream team at the summer Olympics and won the gold medal, it would be absolutely amazing. Some people would offer excuses that the US wasnt at their best, and the Canadians were much better than you might otherwise think, but none of that would matter at all. It would still be a remarkable feat.
Even, in the basketball scenario above, you are leaving the hate between the countries out of the picture (communist Russia vs capitalist USA).
I'm a Cdn by the way.
I wouldn't dispute that. Probably significantly better; a team that was peaking. I just think there's a tendency to blow their superiority all out of proportion, to take this episode and extrapolate excessively.
I'm not denying that the Soviets had great teams. But the Challenge Cup was very much like the IIHFs and the Olympics of those days - an event that was tilted to their advantage from the start.
I'm sure Alan Eagleson (and John Ziegler) were simply delighted to do them that favour.
Yes, there were other considerations. But this doesn't change the fact that the Challenge Cup was still totally skewed in the Soviets' favour. Not making excuses, but we all know how hard it is for a team to gel within what was more like a matter of hours (practicing) rather than days.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
I'm curious how some Canadians were raised on it. For me, it was always the Soviets are bad, but not nearly as bad as the Americans.
Maybe that's just growing up in a socialist community of Ukranian immigrants.
Maybe that's just growing up in a socialist community of Ukranian immigrants.
Boom Boom Bear
Registered User
Yes, quite clearly the MOST important moment in American history EVER, easily slays the Emanicpation Proclamation. I'd put it up there with the defeat of the Nazis & the resurrection of Christ in terms of its importance to world history. In fact, since the Miracle On Ice, there are millions of us who do not call this year AD 2013 & instead call it PLP 33. *[post Lake Placid]
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 11,855
- 6,838
Neal Broten was a star. Not a super star of course but he scored 98 points in 73 games in his rookie season in 81–82. Had a better PPG that year than Calder Trophy winner Dale Hawerchuk, 1.34 vs 1.28. Of course I'm not saying Broten was better than Hawerchuk because he obviously wasn't the same kind of player and played with better support on a better team, but that's pretty good numbers for a rookie. Later on he became the first american to score more than 100 points in an NHL season. And yeah, Mike Ramsey was more than decent. And Dave Christian. That team had some good players.
pld459666
Registered User
everything save the bolded comment is legit.
That US Team was put together in the summer of 79.
They played and trained together for 6-8 months?
The Soviets?
they did not share the same benefit the Soviets did.
That's an interesting perspective. I would say that my point of view, growing up in BC, was very much shaped by the fact that the US media dominated television: ABC, NBC and CBS basically determined what was watched, and what was ignored, and CBC and CTV followed along to much extent, showing the most popular American programs...
So, with that and the fact that I was a kid in the 70s, only interested in sports, not reading newspapers, I received no information about the relative differences between Soviet and American politics. Few people did, I suppose, because the media was so much more centralized.
I am curious, you say that you grew up in a Ukrainian (Canadian prairie?) community. To what extent was the prevailing point of view influenced by Soviet information during the Cold War? Did it somehow find its way to North America around the Berlin Wall? It seems ironic to me, that a community of Ukrainians would view things in the terms you describe, given the war of 1917-21 and the annexation, etc.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Series Talk: [C1] Winnipeg Jets vs. [WC2] St. Louis Blues (Series Tied 3-3) (39 Viewers)
- Latest: NoName
-
