How do you feel about Olympic hockey?

[OnlyTruth]

I think he is trying to say that there are mostly pros in the olympics

Exactly!

 

[Kane One]

I think he is trying to say that there are mostly pros in the olympics

Eh, who cares? If anyone wants to watch amateurs, watch the WJC. The Olympics are a trillion times better than the World Championships, because players who are on teams that eventually make the playoffs could play in the Olympics. The World Championships just features American and Canadian teams of players who didn't make the playoffs or who got knocked out in the first round.

And when was Olympic Hockey full of amateurs? Weren't the USSR players professionals? How about the other European teams?

 

[OnlyTruth]

Eh, who cares? If anyone wants to watch amateurs, watch the WJC. The Olympics are a trillion times better than the World Championships, because players who are on teams that eventually make the playoffs could play in the Olympics. The World Championships just features American and Canadian teams of players who didn't make the playoffs or who got knocked out in the first round.

And when was Olympic Hockey full of amateurs? Weren't the USSR players professionals? How about the other European teams?

Obviously watching pros are more interesting, but this is not what defines Olympics. You may as well change the name.

 

[Kane One]

Obviously watching pros are more interesting, but this is not what defines Olympics. You may as well change the name.

How long does the Olympics have to be full of professionals for it to not be considered an amateur tournament? Just looking online, it was until some time in the 1970s where they allowed professionals. That's 40 years. I think that's been enough time for people to forget about the whole amateur thing.

Using everyone's logic about how the Olympics should be an amateur tournament, you would say the Vezina Trophy should still go to the goalie on the team who gives up the least amount of goals. For most of the existence of the Vezina, it was the Jennings Trophy. They changed it, so move on.

The Olympics should be about the best athletes from one country vs the best athletes from other countries. Why should they be amateurs?

 

[NYRKindms]

Eh, who cares? If anyone wants to watch amateurs, watch the WJC. The Olympics are a trillion times better than the World Championships, because players who are on teams that eventually make the playoffs could play in the Olympics. The World Championships just features American and Canadian teams of players who didn't make the playoffs or who got knocked out in the first round.

And when was Olympic Hockey full of amateurs? Weren't the USSR players professionals? How about the other European teams?

It was an American tradition. So if you are young or not American I could understand you not remembering that. It was one of the things that made it special when our "kids" won. That was what was soo special about the miracle on ice. Basically in the past if you got paid to play you were in eligible for the Olympics. It made it more of a sacrifice for guys to forgo the paycheck to play for the US. It also made the window for Olympic participation smaller.

 

[Kane One]

It was an American tradition. So if you are young or not American I could understand you not remembering that. It was one of the things that made it special when our "kids" won. That was what was soo special about the miracle on ice. Basically in the past if you got paid to play you were in eligible for the Olympics. It made it more of a sacrifice for guys to forgo the paycheck to play for the US. It also made the window for Olympic participation smaller.

I am American but I am too young to remember, but I'm happy I wasn't alive to remember it, because that sounds terrible. Olympics should be about the best players from all over the world playing against each other. I don't care if the best player is 12 or 100 years old or if they get paid $0 or $10M. If they are among the best, they should play.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I enjoy watching the Olympics and find it fun to root for the US, especially as we improve our talent, but I'm mostly watching from an unbiased perspective, like watching a Blackhawks vs Avalanche game, watching the players more than rooting for an outcome. All in all, I'm always ready for the NHL to get back to business, but it's good hockey and the only hockey so it's on my tv.

 

[NYRKindms]

I am American but I am too young to remember, but I'm happy I wasn't alive to remember it, because that sounds terrible. Olympics should be about the best players from all over the world playing against each other. I don't care if the best player is 12 or 100 years old or if they get paid $0 or $10M. If they are among the best, they should play.

It was American amateurs vs the world. And what you describe was not what the original intent of the Olympics was hence the objection from some folks. The best of the best in a hockey sense was what the NHL is for

 

[Kane One]

It was American amateurs vs the world. And what you describe was not what the original intent of the Olympics was hence the objection from some folks. The best of the best in a hockey sense was what the NHL is for

No it's not. In the NHL, you don't represent your country. The Olympics is about the best country in each respective sport.

And the Olympics was really about the best amateurs vs the best amateurs. It wasn't always the best American amateurs vs the world. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember.

 

[OnlyTruth]

How long does the Olympics have to be full of professionals for it to not be considered an amateur tournament? Just looking online, it was until some time in the 1970s where they allowed professionals. That's 40 years. I think that's been enough time for people to forget about the whole amateur thing.

Using everyone's logic about how the Olympics should be an amateur tournament, you would say the Vezina Trophy should still go to the goalie on the team who gives up the least amount of goals. For most of the existence of the Vezina, it was the Jennings Trophy. They changed it, so move on.

The Olympics should be about the best athletes from one country vs the best athletes from other countries. Why should they be amateurs?

If you think you are watching a quality hockey in the Olympics, think again. You have bunch of stars who practiced together for 5 minutes going on the ice. You put even an armature team that was trained well for a long time against those stars and the pros won't hold their ground. I remember they had this special game in soccer of world stars against an England club. Stars lost by a very high score. Of course England club are pros too, but my point is that stars are not used to playing common system because of lack of practice.

 

[NYRKindms]

No it's not. In the NHL, you don't represent your country. The Olympics is about the best country in each respective sport.

And the Olympics was really about the best amateurs vs the best amateurs. It wasn't always the best American amateurs vs the world. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember.

You seem kind of mad. Sorry I was just saying how the us Olympic team used to be constructed. And it was us amateurs vs the world. Countries paid their athletes to train and play etc but that was a no no here.

Some people think something was lost when the us allowed pros to go. That's all wasn't trying to be a jerk.

 

[Tawnos]

It was American amateurs vs the world. And what you describe was not what the original intent of the Olympics was hence the objection from some folks. The best of the best in a hockey sense was what the NHL is for

It was never American amateurs vs the world. That thought only applies to the Soviet teams, which were guys who weren't getting paid but who were getting compensated. Every other country not in the Soviet bloc was sending amateurs, including, for example, the Swedes.

The whole amateur thing is an extension of the English ideal of an amateur sportsman which dates back a couple of centuries. The intent of the Olympics was to showcase the best in the world at a time when for sports like track and field ones, the best in the world were amateurs. That's not the case anymore. Hanging on to an ideal that's no longer practical and doesn't represent the best of the best is a little silly.

 

[NYRKindms]

It was never American amateurs vs the world. That thought only applies to the Soviet teams, which were guys who weren't getting paid but who were getting compensated. Every other country not in the Soviet bloc was sending amateurs, including, for example, the Swedes.

The whole amateur thing is an extension of the English ideal of an amateur sportsman which dates back a couple of centuries. The intent of the Olympics was to showcase the best in the world at a time when for sports like track and field ones, the best in the world were amateurs. That's not the case anymore. Hanging on to an ideal that's no longer practical and doesn't represent the best of the best is a little silly.

Many countries had interesting ideas about status , govt funding and compensation. But your point stands.

 

[SA16]

Waste of time. Would much rather watch the NHL. I do enjoy the games though as it's better than nothing.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Eh, who cares? If anyone wants to watch amateurs, watch the WJC. The Olympics are a trillion times better than the World Championships, because players who are on teams that eventually make the playoffs could play in the Olympics. The World Championships just features American and Canadian teams of players who didn't make the playoffs or who got knocked out in the first round.

And when was Olympic Hockey full of amateurs? Weren't the USSR players professionals? How about the other European teams?

Save the best-on-best for the late summer. Top elite prospects who were too old for the U20s played in the Olympics before the pros went.

Leetch, Richter, Lindros, Kariya, Selanne, Tkachuk, Forsberg, Zubov, Muller, Glenn Anderson.

There was no need to put NHLers in the Olympics other than money. Two Olympics were played just fine without the KLM Russians.

It's just a great way to make money. I can tell you that the 1992 games were just as exciting with guys like Clark Donatelli and Ray Leblanc than it was with Parise and Kane in 2010. In fact, the storyline was better anyway.

 

[Kane One]

Save the best-on-best for the late summer. Top elite prospects who were too old for the U20s played in the Olympics before the pros went.

Leetch, Richter, Lindros, Kariya, Selanne, Tkachuk, Forsberg, Zubov, Muller, Glenn Anderson.

There was no need to put NHLers in the Olympics other than money. Two Olympics were played just fine without the KLM Russians.

It's just a great way to make money. I can tell you that the 1992 games were just as exciting with guys like Clark Donatelli and Ray Leblanc than it was with Parise and Kane in 2010. In fact, the storyline was better anyway.

Except there's no best on best in the summer. It's the best on best players who aren't in the playoffs.

Edit - Whoops. Misread.

 

[Tawnos]

Except there's no best on best in the summer. It's the best on best players who aren't in the playoffs.

He did say late summer, but that doesn't always work well either. Remember the 1996 USA World Cup win? Yeah? Where was Ray Bourque on the Canadian team?

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

Eight am on a Sunday.

This is terrible. This game, at least, I will try to wake up for and watch live. The rest of the games I will probably have to DVR and somehow avoid the results all day until I have watched it. It is definitely not as fun an experience this way when you can't watch the games live at a reasonable time.

It will be even worse for west coasters. 5 am for the gold medal game? Will be people still gather in squares and watch on a giant screen? -That is if the USA or Canada makes it to the finals this year.

 

[Ail]

This is terrible. This game, at least, I will try to wake up for and watch live. The rest of the games I will probably have to DVR and somehow avoid the results all day until I have watched it. It is definitely not as fun an experience this way when you can't watch the games live at a reasonable time.

It will be even worse for west coasters. 5 am for the gold medal game? Will be people still gather in squares and watch on a giant screen? -That is if the USA or Canada makes it to the finals this year.

It sucks but, they can't just cater game times to North America when it is a global athletic event. There is going to be almost no way to avoid spoilers for Olympic game results just short of waking up, and hitting play on your DVR without going on the Internet for the entire game. Even then you can't be sure.

I will watch live or not at all. It's not the same when the results have already played out.

 

[Oak]

Any times a game is played on larger ice I really enjoy it. Funny I grew up with NHL hockey but the older I get the more I appreciate the larger ice. Just seems like a much better game imo.

 

[vippe]

I enjoy it a lot. Much rather see Sweden win than my team win the cup and it's not really close either. It's better hockey, better teams and it get's my friends steamed up for hockey so I'm not all alone with the interest for once hehe

 

[Fitzy]

I always enjoy it, it's only a handful of games once every 4 years so you have to appreciate it while its here.

This may well be the last olympics with pros before they move back to the World Cup of hockey. But it has meaning as a tournament, and meaning to the countries involved. Henrik's gold medal as a rookie was a proud achievement.

 

[Jabroni]

I like the Olympics for hockey. Really got into the USA and Canada games.

 

[chosen]

It is better hockey than NHL hockey.

 

[silverfish]

It is better hockey than NHL hockey.

Definitely agree, at least about the regular season.

1. Playoff hockey
2. Olympic hockey
3. Regular season NHL hockey

No doubt.