IIHF World Rankings

[An Argument For]

The IIHF gave Asia an entry to the World Championships for several years starting 1998 even though the Asian teams did not deserve it on the ice, yet they are blamed for not caring enough about that part of the world? Seriously?

They gave it too them? How generous. It's a good thing we have such a generous organization overseeing hockey in the world. I mean they're the only organization in the world who capable of creating a legitimate international tournament and they were kind enough to bliss some national teams with privilege of playing hockey.

All hail the IIHF!

 

[jekoh]

They gave it too them? How generous. It's a good thing we have such a generous organization overseeing hockey in the world. I mean they're the only organization in the world who capable of creating a legitimate international tournament

They're not the only one, so too are FIBA, FIFA, etc.

Yes it's a good thing we have international governing bodies responsible for organizing international competitions. Imagine if we didn't and we had to rely on individual leagues to each organize their own version of the football World Cup :puke:

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

The IIHF gave Asia an entry to the World Championships for several years starting 1998 even though the Asian teams did not deserve it on the ice, yet they are blamed for not caring enough about that part of the world? Seriously?

so they gave them an "entry," as you put it. How much money do they invest in hockey development in that part of the world? Probably less than the sum of the travel expenses for IIHF senior officials in a calendar year. They have done virtually nothing to boost the hockey infrastructure or player development in Asia. If it's not European, it doesn't get the TLC from the EIHF (I mean, IIHF).

 

[An Argument For]

They're not the only one, so too are FIBA, FIFA, etc.

Yes it's a good thing we have international governing bodies responsible for organizing international competitions. Imagine if we didn't and we had to rely on individual leagues to each organize their own version of the football World Cup :puke:

They're not responsible for it.. They choose to do it.

There have been many cases where the organizational bodies have produced corrupt and illegitimate tournament and competitions. They don't inherently induce legitimacy. Of course I'm not against individual stakeholders collaborating on endeavors to produce an outcome beneficial to all parties... You can produce a desired outcome without the party telling us what is right and wrong, o.k. comrade.

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

Well the Canada Cup organizers have certainly shown themselves to be corrupt, but that's besides the point. The IOC being corrupt does not make their tournament less legit. If it did, you guys wouldn't be gloating to no end about the recent Olympics.

Let me seize on something you just wrote.

You wrote that corruption plays no role in the legitimacy of a tournament. So, that being the case, why the Euro antipathy towards the Canada Cup or World Cup? Clearly, the corruption of Alan Eagleson doesn't undermine the value of the actual tournament itself. Oh, I get why the Canada Cup and World Cup are reviled: you don't win.

Again, you've made it clear that corruption does not make a tournament less legit. Now, given its appalling track record, does that thinking apply only to the IIHF WHCs (and other IIHF-sanctioned events), given the IIHF's many instances of influence-peddling and backroom-dealing and outright prejudice? Or does that thinking apply only to an NHL-sanctioned event?

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I am being perfectly honest when I say this.

I have never met a single American or Russian fan here or anywhere else who thought their victories in the Canada Cup in 81 or the world cup in 95 were tainted or illegitimate because it was organized by other then the IIHF. In fact, it is always sourced as a matter of pride or as an argument of result based facts when discussing certain topics.

And had say, Finland won 3-2 and not lost 3-2 against Canada at the last world cup I highly doubt I would hear a single one of their fans say it was a sham victory either.My guess is that beating Canada in that tournament would be looked at as the greatest accomplishment in their international Hockey national team history to date.

It's for this reason alone(and do I require any others?) that I don't buy the legitimacy argument from certain posters. If it is legitimate when they win how does it suddenly become unworthy when they don't win?.

Answer that satisfactorily and I'll agree with you.

 

[fan75]

so they gave them an "entry," as you put it. How much money do they invest in hockey development in that part of the world? Probably less than the sum of the travel expenses for IIHF senior officials in a calendar year. They have done virtually nothing to boost the hockey infrastructure or player development in Asia. If it's not European, it doesn't get the TLC from the EIHF (I mean, IIHF).

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/asia.html

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/....html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=232&cHash=0ac0aeb973

 

[WarriorofTime]

I am being perfectly honest when I say this.

I have never met a single American or Russian fan here or anywhere else who thought their victories in the Canada Cup in 81 or the world cup in 95 were tainted or illegitimate because it was organized by other then the IIHF. In fact, it is always sourced as a matter of pride or as an argument of result based facts when discussing certain topics.

And had say, Finland won 3-2 and not lost 3-2 against Canada at the last world cup I highly doubt I would hear a single one of their fans say it was a sham victory either.My guess is that beating Canada in that tournament would be looked at as the greatest accomplishment in their international Hockey national team history to date.

It's for this reason alone(and do I require any others?) that I don't buy the legitimacy argument from certain posters. If it is legitimate when they win how does it suddenly become unworthy when they don't win?.

Answer that satisfactorily and I'll agree with you.

I'll be honest. I have never met a single American that cares about the 1996 World Cup of Hockey. I would say over 99 % of the population has never heard of it.

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/asia.html

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/....html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=232&cHash=0ac0aeb973

How much money do they invest in player development and infrastructure relative to what they invest in player development and infrastructure in Europe? I can set up an intramural tournament in my own neighbourhood, too. Doesn't mean I'm doing anything more than that.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Let me seize on something you just wrote.

You wrote that corruption plays no role in the legitimacy of a tournament. So, that being the case, why the Euro antipathy towards the Canada Cup or World Cup? Clearly, the corruption of Alan Eagleson doesn't undermine the value of the actual tournament itself. Oh, I get why the Canada Cup and World Cup are reviled: you don't win.

Again, you've made it clear that corruption does not make a tournament less legit. Now, given its appalling track record, does that thinking apply only to the IIHF WHCs (and other IIHF-sanctioned events), given the IIHF's many instances of influence-peddling and backroom-dealing and outright prejudice? Or does that thinking apply only to an NHL-sanctioned event?

It sort of does. He had a major financial incentive for Canada to win and embezzled funds as a result. The fact that he didn't even let the Soviets take the trophy in 1981 is proof enough in my eyes as to what a sham that tournament was.

 

[jekoh]

Again, you've made it clear that corruption does not make a tournament less legit. Now, given its appalling track record, does that thinking apply only to the IIHF WHCs (and other IIHF-sanctioned events), given the IIHF's many instances of influence-peddling and backroom-dealing and outright prejudice? Or does that thinking apply only to an NHL-sanctioned event?

Whether or not the organizers being corrupt diminishes a tournament's legitimacy is a moot point, since an international tournament organized by the NHL has no legitimacy to begin with.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I'll be honest. I have never met a single American that cares about the 1996 World Cup of Hockey. I would say over 99 % of the population has never heard of it.

The general American public? sure, I agree with that.

Hard core American hockey fans like you see here? Oh, they've heard of it, trust me.

And they are damn proud of winning it too, don't kid yourself.

 

[fan75]

How much money do they invest in player development and infrastructure relative to what they invest in player development and infrastructure in Europe? I can set up an intramural tournament in my own neighbourhood, too. Doesn't mean I'm doing anything more than that.

They are not doing the same things as mentioned above in Europe.

What more do you feel they should be doing to develop hockey in Asia?

 

[WarriorofTime]

The general American public? sure, I agree with that.

Hard core American hockey fans like you see here? Oh, they've heard of it, trust me.

And they are damn proud of winning it too, don't kid yourself.

Nope. 1980 Olympics >>> '96 World Cup of Hockey. Don't kid yourself. I've never once heard a hockey fan or otherwise claim that the '96 World Cup was a bigger deal because it was "best on best".

Only super hardcore fans are even aware that there was a "World Cup of Hockey" in 1996, or that it featured it NHL players, or that the US team won.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Well the Canada Cup organizers have certainly shown themselves to be corrupt, but that's besides the point. The IOC being corrupt does not make their tournament less legit. If it did, you guys wouldn't be gloating to no end about the recent Olympics.

So you say both are corrupt, but make a distinction that since the IOC is corrupt that does not make it any less legit, yet the Canada Cup being corrupt does make it less legit.

Makes perfect sense.

Oh, by the way, Canada gloats about all their victories, not just the olympic ones.

And in case you haven't noticed it, which I find hard to believe, every countries fans do that on their victories.

That is what fans of countries that win events do ya know?

 

[The Bad Guy*]

Nope. 1980 Olympics >>> '96 World Cup of Hockey. Don't kid yourself. I've never once heard a hockey fan or otherwise claim that the '96 World Cup was a bigger deal because it was "best on best".

Only super hardcore fans are even aware that there was a "World Cup of Hockey" in 1996, or that it featured it NHL players, or that the US team won.

I never said they don't value the 1980 win more but for you to suggest that dyed in the wool American hockey fans who follow Team U.S.A in international events don't highly value that world cup win over Canada and don't know about it then yes, you are kidding yourself.

You say super hardcore fans? o.k, go and ask American fans here on this site if they have ever heard of it, better yet, go ask them if they have heard of it and suggest it was a nothing win because it happened at the useless world cup of hockey.

Let's see their replies.

 

[jekoh]

So you say both are corrupt, but make a distinction that since the IOC is corrupt that does not make it any less legit, yet the Canada Cup being corrupt does make it less legit.

Makes perfect sense.

I didn't say that.

An international tournament organized by the NHL has no legitimacy, whether corrupt or not.

That they were indeed corrupt obviously does not help their case.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

So purely hypothetically of course, in some fantasy world, if the Canada Cups were not corrupt but the IOC or IIHF ones were corrupt the Canada Cups would still be the illegitimate event?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[The Bad Guy*]

That they were indeed corrupt obviously does not help their case.

And how does them also being corrupt help the IOC's case?

 

[jekoh]

Tournaments organized by the NHL lack the legitimacy provided by an international governing body.

There's no point in asking me to rephrase it over and over again.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

You are right, there is no point.

Because what you argued does not make any sense to me. You have told me that corruption only matters in certain circumstances, that if it happens under the guise of an international governing body then it's A-O.K.

Somehow,someway, in your world an organization that is corrupt has legitimacy it can provide simply by the fact that it is an international governing body

There won't be any way you can rephrase that in which that will make any sense to me.

You can rest now,your work is done.

 

[jekoh]

Because what you argued does not make any sense to me. You have told me that corruption only matters in certain circumstances, that if it happens under the guise of an international governing body then it's A-O.K.

I have not written any of the above.

Somehow,someway, in your world an organization that is corrupt has legitimacy it can provide simply by the fact that it is an international governing body

Exactly. FIFA provides legitimacy to the FIFA World Cup simply by the fact that it is the international governing body.

 

[The Bad Guy*]

I do not care if there was a governing body of all the nations in sport for intergalactic space so long as it has proven itself to be corrupt in the past(as both FIFA and the olympics have both proven in the past and currently to still be) One only has to have watched some of the shenanigans this past olympics to know that.

I get it, somehow this"international govening body" tag washes away all sins for you with them while not for others since it does not contain that sainted tag.

If you are o.k with this reasoning who am I to try to force you to see different?.

It makes no sense to me but you will think as you think and I will think as I think.

I know your position, case closed.

 

[An Argument For]

I do not care if there was a governing body of all the nations in sport for intergalactic space so long as it has proven itself to be corrupt in the past(as both FIFA and the olympics have both proven in the past and currently to still be) One only has to have watched some of the shenanigans this past olympics to know that.

I get it, somehow this"international govening body" tag washes away all sins for you with them while not for others since it does not contain that sainted tag.

If you are o.k with this reasoning who am I to try to force you to see different?.

It makes no sense to me but you will think as you think and I will think as I think.

I know your position, case closed.

The train of thought they have is an absurd definition of legitimacy. It's akin to Monarchy. Legitimacy is provided by all stakeholders. If the NHL wants to create a tournament, the participating countries agree to send national teams, and the participating players agree to play for those teams then there is nothing stopping it from being a legitimate tournament. The 2004 World Cup had some of the best teams we've ever seen from European countries. The Russian, Finland, Sweden, and Slovakian rosters may have been the best ever assembled post the Soviet collapse. Same thing with 1996 US roster it may have been as good as the 2002 Olympic roster.

So if the best on best are truly playing each other, the divisions, seeding, format, scheduling, and refereeing are all in line with conventional standards.. it truly is a legitimate tournament.

 

[Zine]

The difference is, corrupt or not, international governing bodies ensure that all federations are represented and/or have a voice in the decision making process of the tournaments their teams compete in.

Not comparable to the World Cup which is the NHL's way or the highway.