How much more dominant Soviets would have been

[TonsofPuppies*]

The Russians (and other Soviets) looked pretty dominant at the '79 Challenge Cup and '81 Canada Cup.

They had their moments, but the argument is that they weren't the dominant hockey power. Team USA won the 1996 World Cup, but that didn't make them the dominant hockey power. Here are the best-on-best Tournaments that the Soviets competed in:

Summit Series, 1972 - L
Canada Cup, 1976 - L
Canada Cup, 1981 - W
Canada Cup, 1984 - L
Canada Cup, 1987 - L
Canada Cup, 1991 - L

Winning 1 out 6 is hardly what I could consider dominant, but there's no question that they were a great team in their own right. I would say that the team that won 5 of 6 is the dominant one, though.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The NHL Olympics are turning out to be almost as dominant for Canada as the Canada Cups were three decades ago. I wonder what alternate universe fantasies will be concocted in the future to try to diminish that?

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. We'll never know how "best on best" Olympics would have gone in the Soviet era. It's obvious the Soviet Union system was stronger than the Rusisan system. Here are the Russians that came over to the NHL in 1994 when the iron curtain fell.

Sergei Federov (24)
Alexander Mogilny (24)
Alexei Zhamnov (23)
Sergei Zubov (23)
Pavel Bure (22)
Oleg Petrov (22)
Darius Kasparaitis (21)
Vyacheslav Kozlov (21)
Boris Mironov (21)
Alexei Zhitnik (21)
Alexei Kovalev (20)
Alexei Yashin (20)

and many more. All young players born and developed by the Soviet system/

 

[WarriorofTime]

They had their moments, but the argument is that they weren't the dominant hockey power. Team USA won the 1996 World Cup, but that didn't make them the dominant hockey power. Here are the best-on-best Tournaments that the Soviets competed in:

Summit Series, 1972 - L
Canada Cup, 1976 - L
Canada Cup, 1981 - W
Canada Cup, 1984 - L
Canada Cup, 1987 - L
Canada Cup, 1991 - L

Winning 1 out 6 is hardly what I could consider dominant, but there's no question that they were a great team in their own right. I would say that the team that won 5 of 6 is the dominant one, though.

Canada Cup is not a best on best.

 

[Yakushev72]

They had their moments, but the argument is that they weren't the dominant hockey power. Team USA won the 1996 World Cup, but that didn't make them the dominant hockey power. Here are the best-on-best Tournaments that the Soviets competed in:

Summit Series, 1972 - L
Canada Cup, 1976 - L
Canada Cup, 1981 - W
Canada Cup, 1984 - L
Canada Cup, 1987 - L
Canada Cup, 1991 - L

Winning 1 out 6 is hardly what I could consider dominant, but there's no question that they were a great team in their own right. I would say that the team that won 5 of 6 is the dominant one, though.

Delete all Canada Cups and World Cups from consideration, because they do not qualify as best on best. These were privately owned invitational tournaments that defined its competitive rules and regulations based on the individual interests of the tournament owners. They did not conform to international norms of equal competition, and they have never been sanctioned as world championships.

 

[WarriorofTime]

They had the biased reffing advantage in Moscow during the 1972 Summit Series and still lost the last three games. Once Canada was in shape and started playing like a team with chemistry, even a massive advantage in PP was not enough for the Soviets to win the series.

You mean once Clarke broke Kharlamov's ankle on a vicious slash.

 

[TonsofPuppies*]

Delete all Canada Cups and World Cups from consideration, because they do not qualify as best on best. These were privately owned invitational tournaments that defined its competitive rules and regulations based on the individual interests of the tournament owners. They did not conform to international norms of equal competition, and they have never been sanctioned as world championships.

So you're saying the WC is a better example of best-on-best than the Canada Cup? The Canada Cup was the only tournament where every country had the opportunity to send the best possible roster they could ice, without worrying about pro/amateur status. That's the definition of best on best and I apologize that your team could only muster 1 win out of 5.

 

[WarriorofTime]

So you're saying the WC is a better example of best-on-best than the Canada Cup? The Canada Cup was the only tournament where every country had the opportunity to send the best possible roster they could ice, without worrying about pro/amateur status. That's the definition of best on best and I apologize that your team could only muster 1 win out of 5.

Canada Cup was an exhibition and heavily biased for the Canadians. I mean, Alan Eagleson threw a big hissy fit and didn't even let the Soviets take the trophy when they whooped Canada in 1981. Tells you all you need to know about the Canada Cup as far as being some legitimate international competition.

 

[TonsofPuppies*]

Canada Cup was an exhibition and heavily biased for the Canadians. I mean, Alan Eagleson threw a big hissy fit and didn't even let the Soviets take the trophy when they whooped Canada in 1981. Tells you all you need to know about the Canada Cup as far as being some legitimate international competition.

It was more legitimate than the Olympic games or the World Championships. And if you choose to exclude the Canada Cup from your argument, then the Soviets NEVER won a best on best tournament. That helps my argument anyway.

 

[Yakushev72]

So you're saying the WC is a better example of best-on-best than the Canada Cup? The Canada Cup was the only tournament where every country had the opportunity to send the best possible roster they could ice, without worrying about pro/amateur status. That's the definition of best on best and I apologize that your team could only muster 1 win out of 5.

What I'm saying is that the Canada Cup and World Cup were not best on best tournaments. I didn't say the WC was a best on best.

The whole "amateur/pro" issue existed only among North Americans. Playing on a national team and receiving a small stipend for living expenses was never prohibited. Canadian and US players lived together on national teams and received living stipends in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992. Soviet players at the height of the Soviet era received about $ 5000 per year in stipends, quite a bit less than pro players made even back in the 1980's, and probably about the same amount that their Canadian "amateur" counterparts received . NHL players represented Canada in 1988 and 1992, so its not as if those teams were rank amateurs.

 

[TonsofPuppies*]

What I'm saying is that the Canada Cup and World Cup were not best on best tournaments. I didn't say the WC was a best on best.

The whole "amateur/pro" issue existed only among North Americans. Playing on a national team and receiving a small stipend for living expenses was never prohibited. Canadian and US players lived together on national teams and received living stipends in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992. Soviet players at the height of the Soviet era received about $ 5000 per year in stipends, quite a bit less than pro players made even back in the 1980's, and probably about the same amount that their Canadian "amateur" counterparts received . NHL players represented Canada in 1988 and 1992, so its not as if those teams were rank amateurs.

Care you explain your reasoning?

And of course the "amateur/pro" issue only existed among North Americans. They were the only ones affected by it.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Feel free to start the thread again, this time without the overt agenda.