Dude, that has nothing to do with if it's legitimate or not for them. Everybody knows that there are many sports in the US and many of the 50 states really don't hear about hockey too much. But what the hell is this saying about what real hockey fans in the states think about their world cup win over the biggest rival, Canada? I would say that many of them are happy and proud.
IIHF World Rankings
- Thread starter Golden Jet
- Start date
Dude, that has nothing to do with if it's legitimate or not for them. Everybody knows that there are many sports in the US and many of the 50 states really don't hear about hockey too much. But what the hell is this saying about what real hockey fans in the states think about their world cup win over the biggest rival, Canada? I would say that many of them are happy and proud.
What difference does it make if all federations have a voice in the decision making if it's corrupt?
It's about as worthwhile as a vote in a Syrian election.
Man you are not in a good mood.
If I were an american hockey fan, I would probably consider winning 1980 olympics as the best sport memory ever. But again, it has nothing, NOTHING, to do with the fact whether or not americans deeply care about their world cup win in 96.
I can tell you that every american would be proud of that success even those who don't know what hockey is.
By the way, what does it mean 'only super fans' ?? You simply care about an elite hockey tournament if you are a hockey fan, you don't have to call yourself a super-fan for it. People who watch hockey only because their TV is broadcasting, and they would not care otherwise, are not fans. But I can asure you of the fact that people who have tickets for american NHL teams like NYR, MIN, CHI, DET, really care about hockey overall and I would bet that they watch their national team when it's a best-on-best tournament. Don't kid yourself.
Just make a poll here if you want, if there are any american hockey fans here who think that the win of 1996 world cup means nothing.
Last edited:
Like I said, i've never come across a fan of either the U.S or Russia who said their wins in the Canada/world cup were illegitimate since they were not organized by the IIHF.
They are both very proud of those victories and every fan from those places that i've ever known has used it as claim that they were the best at that particular time.
How could there exist such positive conviction over such accomplishments if they were viewed as a sham joke like meaningless victory in a bogus tournament?
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,400
- 23,790
Right, but the difference is when people proclaim that the only tournaments that have any legitimacy or matter are ones that are "best on best". According to this, the US World Cup 1996 Gold Medal >>>> US Olympic 1980 Gold Medal.
That's just not true, at least not how it's seen in the US.
Well, you said:
This post had nothing to do with it. I don't know how other people have read this post, but I read it like it was saying that almost nobody in the USA really cares about that tournament. Not that 1980 was more important.
For one thing an IIHF tournament would be an open tournament with qualifying, to grow the game.
I don't think you're going to see the NHL place Latvia or Slovenia in their World Cup with a combined 2 NHL players.
An IIHF tournament would also have rotating hosts.
Well the last world cup had games in 7 cities in 6 countries so they did spread the love to 4 non NHL cities. I'm sure Prague, Helsinki, and Stockholm enjoyed the opportunity to watch their best players plan on home ice.
Also the World Cup did have 8 teams so there is room for other countries to qualify, but every hockey tournament doesn't need to expand and be all inclusive. At some point a competition should be designed to determine the best team and concentrating the games among the best teams is the best way to that. I'm sure Austria had a blast at the Olympics but the majority of paying consumers don't want to watch Canada and Russia beat up on Austria, we want Canada and Russia to face each other.
There is room to qualify but there is no qualifying process, the NHL chooses the teams.
I never said it had to expand, but to include a qualifying process.
The final is always in North America.
Let's talk about then, if it's good to have 16 or 12 teams in a World Cup tournament, or only 8 or 6. I think that 8 is the best number. I don't really think that you need to play Slovenia or Norway at this tournament. You always can make an argument for Denmark, France, Germany, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, Austria....but they can't play all together at World Cup. You can make some qualification system that only two of them would play, but how? And mainly, it would be without their NHL players, which is the point for teams like Denmark or Austria. You can take the best from IIHF rankings, or from the last IIHF tournament, I don't know.
But for me, the best thing is just to play the best teams out there. And from the non-elite teams, the best is Switzerland. Then you can argue about Germany, Latvia, Denmark...but since Switzerland has had definitely better results than all of the other teams, they should be the one who get the chance to play the world cup, in my opinion.
All I wanted to say was that Hockey Canada(Canadian Ice Hockey Federation) wants to win the IIHF WC and do care about it. If they could have the best players possible they would have them on the team. And they actually do have the best possible team, the best players that can and want to play from the NHL they do play for team Canada.
If a Canadian fans or NHL teams doesn't care about the IIHF WC is another story. Hockey Canada do however care about this tournament, they want Canada to win and this is why they send NHL players, the best they can get ahold of, and don't send players from CHL.
And the bolded thing I don't care about at all. Hockey is hockey to me, and it's just a little different between North America and the rest of the world, like most other things like the metric system and stuff.
Of course you don't care about it, because you can't refute it. It's a bad habit IIHF supporters and euros have on this site, I find.
Bunny Ahearne had a financial and personal reason to ensure Canada DID NOT win internationally in IIHF sanctioned events (the Canadians, with good reason, wanted him gone).
See, he had this unfortunate habit of confusing personal business with IIHF business. If I am not mistaken, he personally ensured that travel arrangements for IIHF member states in Europe passed through his own travel agency. That sounds like a conflict of interest. He also personally profited from television and advertising deals involving the IIHF. I do not know what kick-backs he received from the Soviets over the years (that info probably died with Ahearne), but his hands were always dirty.
According to your logic, when the IIHF is crooked, that never makes any of its events a sham.
That standard only applies to Alan Eagleson and to the Canada Cup. Gotcha.
Last edited by a moderator:
From a "this shouldn't count as a Best-on-best" perspective, there isn't anything here that makes the result illegitimate.
Home ice has never shown to be an advantage in international play.
TonsofPuppies*
Registered User
Yep. And I guess all of the WHCs (minus 2008) are illegitimate because it's always held in Europe. Some people these days.
Canuck21t
Registered User
I didn't say the result was illegitimate. I simply stated the benefits of an IIHF hosted tournament.
You didn't state benefits.. you stated differences. There's no reason the why the World Cup couldn't be similar to the Four Nations cup. The big four countries play in that tournament every year for Women's Hockey. We just need a 6 Nations Cup.
You just stated on the previous page that the IIHF doesn't do anything for hockey outside of Europe, now you want to do even less.
The fact that women's hockey has a closed tournament, and the huge divide between the best and the rest in women's hockey, makes my point more valid.
Last edited:
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,400
- 23,790
Think he's referring to how Canada produces world class hockey players to go into the National Hockey League, under commissioner Gary Bettman (USA), and are then dispersed across American cities such as Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston, and Los Angeles to provide Stanley Cup parades for these American cities.
Not so.
The NHL is still better than the IIHF. Not close, actually.
The IIHF has only paid nominal heed to Canada throughout its sorry history. There are concentric circles at the IIHF: Some federations are treated better than others, and some federations (non-European ones) are ignored entirely. The IIHF has, historically, been at the beck and call of a few powerful European ice hockey federations. If it was something more than a European house league, than the IIHF would have confronted the obvious eligibility double standard the soviets exploited for decades. It would have ensured Canada hosted more than 1 IIHF world championships in more than 100 years. It would not have cheated the Canadians of an Olympic gold medal in 1936 or arbitrarily manipulated the rules behind closed doors to steal an Olympic bronze from Canadian amateurs in 1964. Compare the amount of time and energy devoted to nurturing the game in certain European countries to the amount of time and energy devoted to growing the game elsewhere in the world. The IIHF will go to the mat fighting for the best transfer arrangements for (some) European hockey nations, and will express concern about the struggles of junior hockey in (some) European nations, but will not express a similar concern about health and growth issues in Asia or even parts of North America.
The 1996 World Cup featured games contested in Europe.
The IIHF world championships will never feature games played in North America (at least not for another 100 years).
The NHL and any events it puts on have vastly more cachet than anything the IIHF puts on.
The EIHF is a sorry joke.
