How can the World Championship improve as an event?

[JackSlater]

For the first 50+ years of the tournament's existence the IIHF basically antagonized Canada and prevented it from fairly competing in a supposed World Championship is what you said, right?

Yes, which you'll notice does not include the word NHL.

How is the IIHF to blame here exactly? Had they allowed Canada "fair representation" in the early days, the beating up on subpar competition would have been even worse and the reputation of the tournament would have suffered even more, wouldn't it?

The IIHF is to blame by banning the best players from Canada (and USA to a lesser degree) from playing in the tournament. It's that simple. If you want to hold a world championship, do not ban the best players from one or two countries. I doubt that the reputation could get worse, but at least there would be significant history there. It could have been the tournament that Eddie Shore, Howie Morenz, Rocket Richard, Doug Harvey, Gordie Howe etc. had competed in for decades, as opposed to the tournament that banned Canada's best, but still was dominated by inferior Canadian players. Even then, after real competition emerged and Canadians could have had actual interest in the results, the IIHF continued to ban Canada's best. It's plain to see how the IIHF is at fault there. As I said though, since 1976 they've done quite well with regard to North America, though the organization's reputation is still pretty low here.

 

[ulvvf]

Many people of the suggest that WHC will be more popular if it's not held every year. I have strong suspicions. Nine games of team Finland got 925k-1.7M (avg) TV spectators in Finland. In Sochi Olympics the top numbers were also ~1.7M.

It's hard to believe that having WHC only every two or four years would make it more popular. If I don't care about some sport or tournament, what does it matter if it's held every year or not? Crosby hasn't been in WHC since 2006. Why would he be more interested about it if it was held every two years if he hasn't been there during last 8 years anyway.

It wouldn't make any difference with NA audience either. If they don't care (or even know), they don't care even it it was held every 10 years.

You didnt reply to me now, but to answer it anyway.

Not alone, it wouldnt make much different, that is why I at least saying that they should do 3 things at ones.

1: Have the event every second year or similar
2: Shorter tournament
3: Have the tournament when NHL is not playing.

In my book you have to do all 3 things, not just one

 

[ulvvf]

I'm not sure that changing the timing would change much for American or Canadian players. Most of them are very focused on their training (as European players are too) and likely be unwilling to interrupt a big portion of their training once it begins for a tournament that has little relevance in their country. For the first 50+ years of the tournament's existence the IIHF basically antagonized Canada and prevented it from fairly competing in a supposed World Championship, and then eventually makes some alterations that partially resolve the issue. It's not surprising that the tournament has a very low reputation in North America, and changing the timing or the amount of times it is played will probably do little to chance that. I don't know how changing the timing will affect European players.

But they are willing to go to joke tournaments like world cup and olympics? Make no sense to me.

When it comes to the rest, even if that would be true, the last 20 years, IIHF has done nothing else but sucking up for Canada/USA, and have get nothing in return.

canada/USA are preveted european nations from playing in a fair competition in olympics and world cup by for a example having NHL refs. Should we forever because of that act childish and never let the past be past?

We need a big neutral tournament, and that have be trough IIHF, not one league/country.

 

[ulvvf]

But as I have said, ok let WHC be as it is. But why do not IIHF create their own world cup in august/september? Why can not IIHF have 2 tournaments?

If they did, I would guess that most would show up for the IIHF version not the NHL joke version.

 

[Urbanskog]

2. Reduce the number of teams to 12. Seriously nobody cares about games like Italy-Kazakhstan.

I do care, and it's not a good idea. Facing better teams helps those countries to develop and Italy and Kazakhstan never face each other in the WHC anyway.

If anything, the number of teams should be increased.

 

[FiLe]

But as I have said, ok let WHC be as it is. But why do not IIHF create their own world cup in august/september? Why can not IIHF have 2 tournaments?

Maybe not two tournaments, but why not move the WHC every now and then? Arranging it in August could be interesting. A little weird at first, but it could work.

They shouldn't of course do it every year because the players (and possibly the audience too) would just stop being interested after the novelty effect wears off. Then it'd just become a regular WHC with even more peculiar timing. But, say, every fourth year would sound pretty cool. Might even do so on an olympic year if the NHL decides it's done with the olympics.

So... if we were to have a cycle of three years with a regular, spring-time WHC and then a year when it's in August, set up as a best-on-best event... yeah, I could get behind that.

Of course, they'd have to time it so that it doesn't overlap with too many of the other major sports events, like the Summer olympics, FIFA World Cup, IAAF Athletics Championships, etc. However, there are no major events at that time on winter olympic years, unless one wishes to count the FIBA and Volleyball World Cups. First time we could see that happen is in 2022, if the NHL decides not to send its players to the 2018 event.

 

[Lepardi]

However, there are no major events at that time on winter olympic years, unless one wishes to count the FIBA and Volleyball World Cups. First time we could see that happen is in 2022, if the NHL decides not to send its players to the 2018 event.

The FIBA World Cup for men won't be played in winter olympic years. The next tournaments are scheduled to be played in 2019 and 2023.

 

[FiLe]

The FIBA World Cup for men won't be played in winter olympic years. The next tournaments are scheduled to be played in 2019 and 2023.

Right, forgot about that. So you'd only have the volleyball event to contend with.

 

[JackSlater]

But they are willing to go to joke tournaments like world cup and olympics? Make no sense to me.

I was speaking in reference to the idea to start the tournament after the playoffs are over, which I don't think will entice many more North Americans. The Olympics are during the season, and the World Cup is before the season. A World Championship before the NHL season might be more successful in terms of player attendance, but I'm not sure. It just isn't valued very highly in North America.

 

[Theokritos]

Yes, which you'll notice does not include the word NHL.

It does include "prevented Canada from fairly competing", aka

banning the best players from Canada (and USA to a lesser degree) from playing in the tournament.

aka not allowing NHLers to play.

If you want to hold a world championship, do not ban the best players from one or two countries.

Sorry, but I can't follow here. You complain that the competition was subpar because the IIIHF allowed "inferior players" to participate – and in the next breath you complain that the IIHF did not allow the competition to become even more subpar?

I doubt that the reputation could get worse, but at least there would be significant history there. It could have been the tournament that Eddie Shore, Howie Morenz, Rocket Richard, Doug Harvey, Gordie Howe etc. had competed in for decades

A significant history of NHLers butchering the rest of the world year after year. I honestly believe that would have hurt the reputation of the tournament a lot more. And besides, who says the NHL was even interested in sending its players to the world championship? Or that the Canadian NHLers were interested? I'd say they (rightly) viewed the WCH as an inferior competition where there was nothing to gain for them. Reality is that the NHL and the IIHF were two separate spheres that didn't care too much about each other prior to the 1960s.

Even then, after real competition emerged and Canadians could have had actual interest in the results, the IIHF continued to ban Canada's best. It's plain to see how the IIHF is at fault there.

Now this I do agree with. As I said above, the second half of the 1960s was the time when the opportunity was missed. But I don't think the ban on NHLers did bother Canada much from 1930-1963, so I definitely don't see the 50+ years figure.

 

[jekoh]

The IIHF is to blame by banning the best players from Canada (and USA to a lesser degree) from playing in the tournament. It's that simple. If you want to hold a world championship, do not ban the best players from one or two countries. I doubt that the reputation could get worse, but at least there would be significant history there. It could have been the tournament that Eddie Shore, Howie Morenz, Rocket Richard, Doug Harvey, Gordie Howe etc. had competed in for decades, as opposed to the tournament that banned Canada's best, but still was dominated by inferior Canadian players. Even then, after real competition emerged and Canadians could have had actual interest in the results, the IIHF continued to ban Canada's best. It's plain to see how the IIHF is at fault there. As I said though, since 1976 they've done quite well with regard to North America, though the organization's reputation is still pretty low here.

It wasn't until 1969 that Canada even tried to get its NHLers to take part in the tournament. All in all, the debate over NHLers lasted for about 7 years, hardly "decades".

 

[JackSlater]

It does include "prevented Canada from fairly competing", aka

aka not allowing NHLers to play.

Yes. That impacted the perception of the tournament in Canada, which is what I talked about. The relationship between the IIHF and the NHL is not the same thing as perceptions of an IIHF tournament in Canada. The NHL is not Canada.

Sorry, but I can't follow here. You complain that the competition was subpar because the IIIHF allowed "inferior players" to participate – and in the next breath you complain that the IIHF did not allow the competition to become even more subpar?

Inferior Canadians (in some cases Americans as well). As far as I know the best players from Europe were allowed to participate. Would the scores have been more lopsided? Yes. The tournament would have at least had legitimacy to call itself a world championship though, and the participation of hockey players who were actually famous in North America might have drawn at least a modicum of interest. There seems to be a different perspective between North Americans and Europeans on these matters, but in Canada people would rather see the best play with lopsided scores than inferior players (ie the Canadians who were inferior) playing somewhat closer games against the opposition.

A significant history of NHLers butchering the rest of the world year after year. I honestly believe that would have hurt the reputation of the tournament a lot more. And besides, who says the NHL was even interested in sending its players to the world championship? Or that the Canadian NHLers were interested? I'd say they (rightly) viewed the WCH as an inferior competition where there was nothing to gain for them. Reality is that the NHL and the IIHF were two separate spheres that didn't care too much about each other prior to the 1960s.

I disagree, as the tournament would have at least been viewed as a legitimate world championship. Teams losing to players that Canadians knew were far from the best hurts the tournament far more than teams losing to the best players. The tournament looks worse when the best players are unfairly banned from competing. I don't know if they NHL was interested in sending its players, though I can speculate that they weren't. Unfortunately we can't know, since the IIHF banned them and thus removed any reason to consider it.

I don't know how the players felt about it either, though they probably viewed participation as an impossibility given that their predecessors had been banned, and in some cases for decades. I remember reading how Gordie Howe was excited prior to the 1974 Summit Series to finally represent Canada. He said he was tired of people asking him his nationality, and that now people would know he was definitely Canadian. Seems to me that he would have enjoyed the opportunity. Probably even more so if players he would have looked up to (Shore, Morenz etc.) had been involved in the very same tournament.

Now this I do agree with. As I said above, the second half of the 1960s was the time when the opportunity was missed. But I don't think the ban on NHLers did bother Canada much from 1930-1963, so I definitely don't see the 50+ years figure.

The 50 years figure represents the amount of time that NHLers were banned from playing in the tournament - it's a fact, not a matter of opinion. That's 50 years of Canadian fans being aware of a tournament calling itself a world championship, but also banning the best from Canada from participating. That is obviously going to leave a negative impression in the minds of Canadians. Do I think that Canadians were up in arms and outraged at the IIHF's unfair practices? No, of course not. Lack of outrage doesn't mean that it didn't make the tournament look insignificant to Canadians.

It wasn't until 1969 that Canada even tried to get its NHLers to take part in the tournament. All in all, the debate over NHLers lasted for about 7 years, hardly "decades".

I don't know what debate you are talking about. The NHLers were not allowed to participate, that is the reality of the situation. That they didn't push to enter the tournament is beside the point - they should not have had to push. The tournament's reputation (which is what I have been talking about) was harmed by the IIHF unfairly banning professional players. Many fans in Europe love the IIHF World Championship in part because of its history there, as generations of the best from those countries participated over the years. Not so for Canadians.

 

[jekoh]

I don't know what debate you are talking about. The NHLers were not allowed to participate, that is the reality of the situation. That they didn't push to enter the tournament is beside the point - they should not have had to push.

The debate regarding whether or not the NHLers should be allowed to participate didn't appear before 1969. Whether or not the IIHF allowed them before that makes no difference: they wouldn't have been there anyway. Before 1969, Canada was allowed to ice every player that they felt like icing, it just so happened that they were content with using amateurs or semi-pros. There's really nothing "unfair" about that.

You make it sound like the tournament was insignificant to Canada because they didn't use their best in the 1950s, when it is the other way around: they didn't use their best because international competition was largely irrelevant to them, with NHLers supposedly so much better than everybody else.

 

[Canuckistani]

I do care, and it's not a good idea. Facing better teams helps those countries to develop and Italy and Kazakhstan never face each other in the WHC anyway.

If anything, the number of teams should be increased.

Sixteen is a good number. Right now it's a perfect mix of established powers and those on the way up. Don't want to include too many poor squads and have too many games that are a forgone conclusion.

The expansion of the event has been pretty much inline with the rate at which various teams have improved with time.

The WHC used to be only eight team (1970s-1991), then 12 (1992-97), and 16 since 1998.

At the Olympics it's been 12 teams (1980-94), 14 teams (1998-02), and 12 since 2006.

 

[Slimmy]

Yes. That impacted the perception of the tournament in Canada, which is what I talked about. The relationship between the IIHF and the NHL is not the same thing as perceptions of an IIHF tournament in Canada. The NHL is not Canada.



Inferior Canadians (in some cases Americans as well). As far as I know the best players from Europe were allowed to participate. Would the scores have been more lopsided? Yes. The tournament would have at least had legitimacy to call itself a world championship though, and the participation of hockey players who were actually famous in North America might have drawn at least a modicum of interest. There seems to be a different perspective between North Americans and Europeans on these matters, but in Canada people would rather see the best play with lopsided scores than inferior players (ie the Canadians who were inferior) playing somewhat closer games against the opposition.



I disagree, as the tournament would have at least been viewed as a legitimate world championship. Teams losing to players that Canadians knew were far from the best hurts the tournament far more than teams losing to the best players. The tournament looks worse when the best players are unfairly banned from competing. I don't know if they NHL was interested in sending its players, though I can speculate that they weren't. Unfortunately we can't know, since the IIHF banned them and thus removed any reason to consider it.

I don't know how the players felt about it either, though they probably viewed participation as an impossibility given that their predecessors had been banned, and in some cases for decades. I remember reading how Gordie Howe was excited prior to the 1974 Summit Series to finally represent Canada. He said he was tired of people asking him his nationality, and that now people would know he was definitely Canadian. Seems to me that he would have enjoyed the opportunity. Probably even more so if players he would have looked up to (Shore, Morenz etc.) had been involved in the very same tournament.



The 50 years figure represents the amount of time that NHLers were banned from playing in the tournament - it's a fact, not a matter of opinion. That's 50 years of Canadian fans being aware of a tournament calling itself a world championship, but also banning the best from Canada from participating. That is obviously going to leave a negative impression in the minds of Canadians. Do I think that Canadians were up in arms and outraged at the IIHF's unfair practices? No, of course not. Lack of outrage doesn't mean that it didn't make the tournament look insignificant to Canadians.



I don't know what debate you are talking about. The NHLers were not allowed to participate, that is the reality of the situation. That they didn't push to enter the tournament is beside the point - they should not have had to push. The tournament's reputation (which is what I have been talking about) was harmed by the IIHF unfairly banning professional players. Many fans in Europe love the IIHF World Championship in part because of its history there, as generations of the best from those countries participated over the years. Not so for Canadians.

I know you are talking about perceptions but to this day Canadians are disgruntled about the IIHF not allowing NHL'ers to play and the discussion is still not very nuanced. In all fairness, not allowing professionals to participate in international tournaments were wide spread in these times. Not only by the IIHF. That it practically only meant the best players from Canada and US could not participate is another matter. Was it fair? That is debatable. You couldn't make a living playing hockey in Europe for some time. In that regard the IIHF tried to level the playing field. However, The Soviet Union effectively circumvented the intended purpose of the rule and enlisted hockey players into the army for the soul purpose of playing hockey full time and training on a regular and professional basis. This is what ticked off so many Canadians and Americans and it's understandable.

 

[JackSlater]

The debate regarding whether or not the NHLers should be allowed to participate didn't appear before 1969. Whether or not the IIHF allowed them before that makes no difference: they wouldn't have been there anyway. Before 1969, Canada was allowed to ice every player that they felt like icing, it just so happened that they were content with using amateurs or semi-pros. There's really nothing "unfair" about that.

Once again, it's not a debate - they were not allowed to participate. Hockey Canada began fighting the IIHF on this idiotic policy in 1969. That does not mean that perceptions in Canada were completely blank prior to 1969. I am amused that you can say with such certainty that those players would not have been there prior to 1969, regardless of the stance of the IIHF. It's almost as amusing as suggesting that Canada was allowed to use every player it wanted prior to 1969. Canada was banned from using its best palyers, and accordingly they did not use their best players. They started fighting in 1969. Not fighting prior to 1969 doesn't mean that they liked were perfectly content with the situation. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

You make it sound like the tournament was insignificant to Canada because they didn't use their best in the 1950s, when it is the other way around: they didn't use their best because international competition was largely irrelevant to them, with NHLers supposedly so much better than everybody else.

I would suggest that it is both, and the IIHF did more than its fair share to ensure that Canada didn't develop an interest in international hockey for many decades. Canada couldn't use its best players, while basically any other nation could. Once again, by banning Canada's best players from its tournament the IIHF did a lot of damage to the reputation of its tournament, as well as its own reputation, in Canada.

Also, once more laughable to suggest that the NHL players were "supposedly" so much better. Considering the Canadian amateur teams were still among the best at the IIHF's competition in the early 1960s, there is no question how the NHL players would have fared. That is all, once again, beside the point though.

 

[jekoh]

Once again, it's not a debate - they were not allowed to participate. Hockey Canada began fighting the IIHF on this idiotic policy in 1969. That does not mean that perceptions in Canada were completely blank prior to 1969. I am amused that you can say with such certainty that those players would not have been there prior to 1969, regardless of the stance of the IIHF. It's almost as amusing as suggesting that Canada was allowed to use every player it wanted prior to 1969. Canada was banned from using its best palyers, and accordingly they did not use their best players. They started fighting in 1969. Not fighting prior to 1969 doesn't mean that they liked were perfectly content with the situation. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

What is ridiculously laughable is the idea that a country that felt its top players were in a class of their own would have used them to beat inferior opposition.

There is evidence of Canada upgrading its team selection process and that it came gradually in response to the increased level of the other teams: Canada used amateur teams until 1964, then as other teams became more and more competitive as evidenced by the fact that even Sweden started to top Canada, they formed the full-time "Team Canada", and as that still wasn't enough to dominate, they started to try and get pros on board in 1969 for the 1970 World Championships in Canada.

On the other hand there is no evidence that pros would have been disallowed had Canada raised the matter earlier. To the contrary the IIHF first agreed to Canada's request in 1969, and then the question was settled favorably just a few years later.

Also, once more laughable to suggest that the NHL players were "supposedly" so much better. Considering the Canadian amateur teams were still among the best at the IIHF's competition in the early 1960s, there is no question how the NHL players would have fared. That is all, once again, beside the point though.

That's not beside the point at all: the perception that NHL players would win every game 20-0 even in the 1960s let alone before that is exactly why Canada wouldn't have sent them anyways, which makes the IIHF rules prior to 1969 completely irrelevant. It's laughable that you don't get that and instead insist that NHLers were indeed so much better, which only further makes my point.

 

[JackSlater]

What is ridiculously laughable is the idea that a country that felt its top players were in a class of their own would have used them to beat inferior opposition.

There is evidence of Canada upgrading its team selection process and that it came gradually in response to the increased level of the other teams: Canada used amateur teams until 1964, then as other teams became more and more competitive as evidenced by the fact that even Sweden started to top Canada, they formed the full-time "Team Canada", and as that still wasn't enough to dominate, they started to try and get pros on board in 1969 for the 1970 World Championships in Canada.

So Canada trying harder within the confines of the rules offered to them constitutes being fine with those rules? OK champ. I haven't offered to quit my job yet, I guess that must mean that I don't want a higher salary.

On the other hand there is no evidence that pros would have been disallowed had Canada raised the matter earlier. To the contrary the IIHF first agreed to Canada's request in 1969, and then the question was settled favorably just a few years later.

Given that the IIHF president was willing to throw Canadian players out of the 1965 world championship just for being former professionals, I would say that yes, there would have been an issue prior to 1969. The rest is an incredible simplification. The IIHF said that Canada could use 9 (arbitrary number) non-NHL (how generous) professional hockey players in 1970. That is not what I would call agreeing to Canada's request. They also proceeded to ban multiple former professionals, and all of their teammates, from future international competitions because they participated for Canada in a 1969 tournament. This prompted Canada to withdraw from international hockey for seven years. I would hardly call seven years, to resolve a despite over whether or not professional players were eligible, just a few years.

That's not beside the point at all: the perception that NHL players would win every game 20-0 even in the 1960s let alone before that is exactly why Canada wouldn't have sent them anyways, which makes the IIHF rules prior to 1969 completely irrelevant. It's laughable that you don't get that and instead insist that NHLers were indeed so much better, which only further makes my point.

It's beside the point because it's something observable (NHL players being better at that point, and earlier) than about perception. When the Summit Series was scheduled Canadians still erroneously thought that the team would dominate, and yet lo and behold they sent mostly their best anyway since the IIHF was not involved. That Canadians would have easily won tournaments in the early 1960s and earlier does not mean they would have simply chosen not to.

This is mostly beside the point though. This was brought up with regard to perceptions in Canada, and the IIHF's policies are a big factor in that. If, as has been suggested, Canada wouldn't even have wanted to use professional players (for whatever reason) then it wouldn't reflect on the IIHF. The fact is that the IIHF banned them, and added to their tournament developing a negative stigma in North America that lingers today.

I know you are talking about perceptions but to this day Canadians are disgruntled about the IIHF not allowing NHL'ers to play and the discussion is still not very nuanced. In all fairness, not allowing professionals to participate in international tournaments were wide spread in these times. Not only by the IIHF. That it practically only meant the best players from Canada and US could not participate is another matter. Was it fair? That is debatable. You couldn't make a living playing hockey in Europe for some time. In that regard the IIHF tried to level the playing field. However, The Soviet Union effectively circumvented the intended purpose of the rule and enlisted hockey players into the army for the soul purpose of playing hockey full time and training on a regular and professional basis. This is what ticked off so many Canadians and Americans and it's understandable.

Yes, I think that most are aware that the IIHF wasn't independent in acting that way, but that does little to change perceptions. The amateur ideal was not nearly as strong in Canada, so the IIHF clinging to it was not viewed in a positive light, regardless of other organizations (IOC of course) doing the same thing. The unfortunate thing is that the reputation of the IIHF in Canada is still quite poor, even though they basically have had any negative action toward Canada in nearly 40 years.

 

[Theokritos]

I don't know how the players felt about it either, though they probably viewed participation as an impossibility given that their predecessors had been banned, and in some cases for decades. I remember reading how Gordie Howe was excited prior to the 1974 Summit Series to finally represent Canada. He said he was tired of people asking him his nationality, and that now people would know he was definitely Canadian. Seems to me that he would have enjoyed the opportunity. Probably even more so if players he would have looked up to (Shore, Morenz etc.) had been involved in the very same tournament.

With the likes of Shore and Morenz a 1930s "Team Canada" would have won every single game with double-digit scores. (Provided their physical play would not have caused an uproar in Europe that would have led to either Canada's expulsion or retreat.) I have a very hard time believing the NHLers would make the overseas trip to the World Championships year after year after such an experience, knowing very well in advance that no worthy opponent was awaiting them in Europe. But okay, let's cut the speculation.

The 50 years figure represents the amount of time that NHLers were banned from playing in the tournament - it's a fact, not a matter of opinion. That's 50 years of Canadian fans being aware of a tournament calling itself a world championship, but also banning the best from Canada from participating... Lack of outrage doesn't mean that it didn't make the tournament look insignificant to Canadians.

I'm not denying that the tournament looked insignificant to Canadians. What I'm saying is it would have looked insignificant anyway because the Canadians simply had no significant international competitor(s). Prior to the 1960s, mind you. In the period afterward, no doubt that the ban on pros antagonized the Canadians in the 1960s and 1970s.

Before 1969, Canada was allowed to ice every player that they felt like icing

On the other hand there is no evidence that pros would have been disallowed had Canada raised the matter earlier.

That's not true. Pros were actually disallowed.

 

[jekoh]

So Canada trying harder within the confines of the rules offered to them constitutes being fine with those rules? OK champ. I haven't offered to quit my job yet, I guess that must mean that I don't want a higher salary.

The "be fine with" part is your words, not mine, genius. My claims is that "every player Canada wanted to ice they were allowed to".

So as for your comparison which for some reason you think disproves my point: if your boss isn't ready to give you more than 100K and you decide to only go for 50K, then it obviously means that whatever you were asking for you got, and that your boss setting the bar at only 100k tops made no difference. Only when you actually start asking for more than that does it make any difference whatosever.

This prompted Canada to withdraw from international hockey for seven years. I would hardly call seven years, to resolve a despite over whether or not professional players were eligible, just a few years.

Canada certainly made it last longer than they needed to, I'll give you that.

The climate at the IOC was changing and Canada failed to see that. Already by then some sports, most notably football, had players at the Olympics that regularly played against pros, so hockey certainly could have been allowed the same had Canada given the IIHF time to negotiate with the IOC rather that putting the sport's status in danger, cancelling the world championships and then withdrawing like spoiled brats.

But regardless of whether or not 7 is 'a few', that's still a very far cry from your laughable "50 years".

It's beside the point because it's something observable (NHL players being better at that point, and earlier) than about perception. When the Summit Series was scheduled Canadians still erroneously thought that the team would dominate, and yet lo and behold they sent mostly their best anyway since the IIHF was not involved. That Canadians would have easily won tournaments in the early 1960s and earlier does not mean they would have simply chosen not to.

Well the Summit Series were the next step in the gradual upgrade of Team Canada, a step that they didn't think was necessary until then. Make of that what you will.

 

[jekoh]

That's not true. Pros were actually disallowed.

What exactly is "not true"? Pros might have not been disallowed anymore had Canada raised the matter earlier, was the point. As I said the IIHF actually first agreed to allow them when Canada resquested it.

 

[ulvvf]

I was speaking in reference to the idea to start the tournament after the playoffs are over, which I don't think will entice many more North Americans. The Olympics are during the season, and the World Cup is before the season. A World Championship before the NHL season might be more successful in terms of player attendance, but I'm not sure. It just isn't valued very highly in North America.

So again, why wouldnt they go to world championship if they have it at the same time of the year as world cup, if they would have gone to the world cup? World cup is a joke tournament, who in the right mind would rather go to that? Because of what happen 50 years ago? Give me a break. Then should european player boykott olympics, world cup and world championship, wjc 20 and so on as well, since IIHF are this days sucking up for canada TODAY not 50 years ago.

 

[Yakushev72]

Canada's performance in the 1972 Canada-Soviet series forced the NHL to negotiate with the IIHF to gain admission of NHL players to the WHC. In that respect, the IIHF was seemingly very amenable to accommodating NHL interests. Since Canadians represented nearly 100 percent of the NHL in 1972, and since minimum expectations were that Canada would nearly demolish the Soviets in all 8 games (remember Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Dick Beddoes' prediction that "Canada will win all 8 games by a minimum margin of 10 goals, or I'll eat my column in borscht?"), the fact that the 8-game series ended in a draw in total goals and one single goal in won-loss represented a huge loss of status and prestige for the NHL in international hockey circles.

The NHL really had no option other than to devise an international hockey tournament that would enable the NHL to control all competitive conditions in a way that would go far towards guaranteeing a Canadian victory. This would permit them to stop the perceived slide toward mediocrity. In exchange, the NHL agreed to participate in the annual WHC. The NHL had no other way to try to recapture its lost luster in the international hockey world. The World Cup obviously followed in the aftermath of the Canada Cup.

 

[Canuckistani]

the fact that the 8-game series ended in a draw in total goals and one single goal in won-loss represented a huge loss of status and prestige for the NHL in international hockey circles.

The NHL didn't suffer a significant loss of status by virtue of winning in 1972. The Challenge Cup loss in 1979, on the other hand...

Recall that 1972 demonstrated that strong national teams existed in Sweden and Czechoslovakia as well. Each of whom tied Canada in exhibitions.

The NHL really had no option other than to devise an international hockey tournament that would enable the NHL to control all competitive conditions in a way that would go far towards guaranteeing a Canadian victory.

The Canada Cup was created to tap into the excitement surrounding international hockey after 1972, not in order to rescue the reputation of the strongest league in the world.

And it's always ammusing to hear Russians talk about the unfair advantages of the Canada Cup.

This from a country that fielded pros at amateur competitions and kept their best players on the same 2-3 club teams year-round for the purpose of peaking at the Olympics/WHC against amateurs or C-squads thrown together at the last minute.

1977-1991 at the WHC/Olympics: USSR 22 wins, Canada 1 win, 4 ties
1976-1991 at the Canada Cup: Canada 5 wins, USSR 3 wins, 2 ties

Easy to see who had the real advantages and where.

 

[Lepardi]

So again, why wouldnt they go to world championship if they have it at the same time of the year as world cup, if they would have gone to the world cup?

Because the World Cup is organized by the NHL, and NHL teams pay their luxurious salaries.