By what metric do you conclude that "NHL referees have been solid internationally for three decades now." Who made that determination? NHL referees? How do you arrive at the conclusion that NHL refs are so much better than, say, KHL refs, that it is justified for Canadian refs to work in games where Canada is playing? Why is it better to risk human bias that I think is evident on the grounds that by some arbitrary standard of patriotic measure, our guys are declared to be better than yours?
World Cup: Is international hockey dead (or too boring to resuscitate)?
- Thread starter Yakushev72
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
By what metric do you conclude that "NHL referees have been solid internationally for three decades now." Who made that determination? NHL referees? How do you arrive at the conclusion that NHL refs are so much better than, say, KHL refs, that it is justified for Canadian refs to work in games where Canada is playing? Why is it better to risk human bias that I think is evident on the grounds that by some arbitrary standard of patriotic measure, our guys are declared to be better than yours?
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,790
- 15,438
I've seen their work, and it has been good. It is a struggle for people to find problems to nitpick. I'm certain that they have tried.
I did not present the conclusion that NHL referees as so much better than other referees. I have been impressed with their work though, certainly more than I am with the work shown at typical IIHF tournaments.
I'm not sure you know what having an opinion means. It's clearly a matter of opinion. A poll was made if this tournament is or isn't best-on-best, 50% of people here voted that it is, 50% (roughly) that it isn't. It's fine for your to say that it isn't best-on-best, I accept that as long as you accept that there is people who think it is best-on-best, and you respect them.
I can also say that it isn't a matter of opinion because I have the right one and that's the truth no matter what you think.
That's exactly what some people do.
Last edited:
I'm not sure you know what having an opinion means. It's clearly a matter of opinion. A poll was made if this tournament is or isn't best-on-best, 50% of people here voted that it is, 50% (roughly) that it isn't. It's fine for your to say that it isn't best-on-best, I accept that as long as you accept that there is people who think it is best-on-best, and you respect them.
I can also say that it isn't a matter of opinion because I have the right one and that's the truth no matter what you think.
Answer this, please: Was USA allowed to pick their best players?
The answer is NO, therefore it was not a best on best. Elementary logic. Next time we could vote what the square root of -1 is, opinions vary on this.
Complete nonsense.
NHL refs work in the top league and are well respected.
Sour grapes.
Jealousy of Canada is getting pretty bad.
So you are not capable of respecting those other 50% of people that have DIFFERENT DEFINITION of something. Good to know.
Well, let me at least hear your definition of what best-on-best means. Is it from wikipedia? From absolute-truths-are-here.com? From ask-and-you-shell-recieve-a-perfect-definition.com? I think I can find websites that define what triangle is, or what square is, and it's pretty clear there's nothing to even argue about. Can you find something like that?
BEST-ON-BEST
A tournament only with countries, where every country has access to its absolute best players without age limit.
Would you agree that this is maybe perfect wording of your definition? I just made that up as it's probably a good way to describe the term for at least majority of people who think the World Cup wasn't best-on-best.
If so, I can tell you what is wrong with that definition, but if you have a different one, do share with me. And I would like to ask this way those people who think the WC wasn't best-on-best tourney, what's your exact definition of best-on-best? Would be funny if those people, agreeing that this wasn't best-on-best, wouldn't have the same definitions of best-on-best at the end.
Last edited:
So what is yours definition of best-on-best? Is it something like this?
BEST-ON-BEST
A tournament, where some countries has access to its absolute best and some has not.
I'm sorry but I just can't respect mental gymnastics involved in such definition.
Of course exact definition may vary, but at least they shouldn't be oxymoron-ish.
So you didn't find an official definiton. Of course that exact definitions from people WITH ONE THING IN COMMON will vary, lol. That's really clever. And ignoring the other half of people that have different definition, I guess let's do it.So what is yours definition of best-on-best? Is it something like this?
BEST-ON-BEST
A tournament, where some countries has access to its absolute best and some has not.
I'm sorry but I just can't respect mental gymnastics involved in such definition.
Of course exact definition may vary, but at least they shouldn't be oxymoron-ish.
There might be other definitions that have nothing much to do with what you use as a defining factor for your definition, that's why it's called DIFFERENT DEFINITION, you know, because it's DIFFERENT. So the need of every country to have 100% access to its every player, isn't necessarily a factor for someone, if those best players, that would've/could've been selected into those teams, are in the tournament anyway.
But I'm still waiting for the people who think the World Cup wasn't best-on-best, to tell me what best-on-best really means then. I am pretty sure that they will start to disagree with one another, for one simple reason, majority of these people don't accept their definition could very even slightly.
Last edited:
Ok, my definition of the term in the most general sense would be:
The best of well defined and exclusive group A against the best of well defined and exclusive group B.
For example Team Left-handed vs Team Right-handed, Team Europe vs Team Asia, Team Religious vs Team Atheist. Not Team Europe vs Team Atheist as this doesn't really make sense. What if there is an atheist European? Which team does he play on? Either way you weaken one team and therefore it's not a best-on-best.
If we are talking about an international competition then:
The best of country A against the best of country B.
For example Team Canada vs Team USA. Team NA23 and Europe are not real countries. I could live with team Europe but team NA23 is really mixing pears and apples (not sure if this idiom translates well to English).
Let's see which Teams actually played in this World Cup.
Team Canada - 24 and older players
Team USA - 24 and older players
Team NA23 - 23 and younger players from two countries
Team Europe - NHLers from 8 European countries
Czechs, Russians, Swedes and Finns - unrestricted
Clearly not best-on-best to me.
How do you define the term best-on-best?
Last edited:
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
In red:
The only part that I attributed to you is the part where I mention in quotation marks your great rebuttal of my theories/opinions is a simple "they have many, many holes". Your very own words, that you never tried to explain/motivate in any post.
If you don't even try to motivate this "many, many holes" rebuttal effort (by itself if you say something has holes and don't explain what those are, it means nothing) & at the same time go down a very sarcastic/patronizing path, the only reasonable position that I can conclude you are at, is that you must be exactly 180 degrees from my theories/opinions. As in completely opposed to what I think.
That's your problem right there. Well, one of them anyway.
Therefore what you describe as me attributing statements to you (if I attribute statements to someone, I put them in quotation marks. Always. That's an established way of doing that in civilized society. Maybe in Estonia they don't? I never been to Estonia, I don't know what happens there) is me simply describing what the polar opposite to my theory is and conclude that must be what you think.
Is it not what you think? Just say so. What is it that you think, besides this "many, many holes" one-line statement? Why do you infer that my theories/opinions about that are worthless? I can't read minds just yet and you never bothered to explain that. Hence the lack of substance from you that I have mentioned a few times. Lots of words, zero explanation on why you rejected that. Zero on anything, really.
Your theory is so full of holes, listing them all would take time that I'm just not willing to waste. I'm afraid any explanations would be lost on you anyway as you consider 3 to be a valid sample size.
However, I am not an idiot, I am sure that you are not willing to have an honest dialogue here. You are just trying to poke here and there to see if there is anything where you can attach yourself to patronize me about my opinions. It is easy to conclude this when you are not speaking about hockey matters any longer. This has been, for a long time, me saying what's my opinion on hockey related things... you trying to ridicule that... rinse and repeat. Man up, admit to that.
I don't recall saying you were. Methinks he doth protest too much.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,790
- 15,438
So what is yours definition of best-on-best? Is it something like this?
BEST-ON-BEST
A tournament, where some countries has access to its absolute best and some has not.
I'm sorry but I just can't respect mental gymnastics involved in such definition.
Of course exact definition may vary, but at least they shouldn't be oxymoron-ish.
His definition of best on best involves feelings and describes the all star game and even some WJC tournaments. That is the result of trying to make a definition fit a tournament you want to be best on best, as opposed to just defining it properly.
Best on best means best from one country vs best from another country. It's very simple. This is what it always meant. The ignorance of some people to the meaning of a term doesn't magically change what the term means.
Fact that you use your own definition does not mean that it isn't wrong definition. Term best on best basically came from canadian fans complaining about WHC SCP schedule and was well customized among fans since then. I dont know how can you even try to apply definiton based on appearence of these players to international team competition. Not mentioning that having best possible team is always more important than have best players there....So team, not players, is purpose of best of best term.
But it says best-on-best, not "international" best-on-best, as you celarly think it is. But it doesn't say anything like that that it must be international. And that it has always been? If a tournament like this was held, in any sport, 50 years ago and then regularly every 8 years and everyone, or majority, called that best-on-best, would you then agree it's best-on-best because "it's always been that way"?
I'm not sure how you can even say "this is what it always meant", when there is clearly people right now who see this tournament as a best-on-best, best against the best, I guess that the present doesn't count into "always", and also how do you know it has always meant that? For you? Oh I believe that. For other people? Well hard to tell when there wasn't a tournament like this, so making an argument that it's always been when there wasn't an opportunity to see if people called a similar tournament like this a best-on-best, in the past, because of other defining factors, that's not really an argument anyway.
And, is then the IIHF World Championships Division II a best-on-best tournament? There are the best players from every country out there. I think you will say it's not, but doesn't your definition say it is? So now I suppose it's "best international teams against best international teams, on top of that, right?" well, explain this to me Sherlock - how then, if some teams weren't allowed to play qualification for the olympics with their NHL players (like Slovakia before 2002, or other cases in 2006, 10), that means that it's not really true the best teams were there, so now what?
And just btw, my definition isn't necessarily based on my feelings - you know one quote of mine isn't gonna tell you everything about how I really view the situation but let yourself think that - but I'm rather trying to make people understand that there are different opinions on these things, something they should respect. I don't really care if it's best-on-best or not, it is for me, and that's where it ends for me. But I care about trashing other people's opinions just because they are different, when it's clear that the term can be defined various ways no matter what anyone thinks.
As long as its best players of Poland vs best players of Lithuania its genuinely best-on-best for me.
Slovakia was really screwed in 1998 and 2002. They could have win it all if they actually qualified, especially in 2002. But the actual Olympic tournament was best-on-best.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
I'm not sure you know what having an opinion means. It's clearly a matter of opinion. A poll was made if this tournament is or isn't best-on-best, 50% of people here voted that it is, 50% (roughly) that it isn't. It's fine for your to say that it isn't best-on-best, I accept that as long as you accept that there is people who think it is best-on-best, and you respect them.
I can also say that it isn't a matter of opinion because I have the right one and that's the truth no matter what you think.
Not sure how anyone can argue with this. There is no dictionary definition for best on best, there is however a dictionary for the word opinion. And opinions in this case to indeed vary (despite the best efforts of the definition police
).Not sure how anyone can argue with this. There is no dictionary definition for best on best, there is however a dictionary for the word opinion. And opinions in this case to indeed vary (despite the best efforts of the definition police
Still waiting for anyone to post the definition of best-on-best that will describe this World Cup.
The argument that 50% of people think it is won't cut it.
Last edited:
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,790
- 15,438
Best on best has only ever referred to international hockey. I doubt that many have ever heard things like the all star game referred to as best on best hockey before. I don't understand what you are even trying to say with the rest. Best on best is a term that has existed for over 40 years though. I don't know if you just really want the NHL's joke tournament to be best on best and it clouds your judgement, or if you really are ignorant to the term, but desire and/or ignorance don't change what a term means.
What does some people being wrong about this tournament have to do with what the term best on best means? Guess what - not everyone's opinion is correct, or even valid. If you claim that your opinion is that Brian Boyle is the best player in the world, that doesn't make it an acceptable opinion just because it is yours.
Best on best always meant the same thing. You look at it backwards, trying to fit a definition to an event rather than just seeing if the event matches the term. If you want to invent some new term to describe the NHL's joke tournament, then go ahead. There is no need to lie about what that tournament was though.
Did Canada have access to the best team Canadian players? Did team USA have access to the best American players? Did team North America have access to the best North American players? Did team Europe have access to the best European players? The answer is no.
The claim that it was best on best because the best players were there is simply idiotic. That makes the NHL is best on best hockey, the all star game is best on best hockey. You even described a tournament of Canadians broken down by various age groups best on best hockey, illustrating just how stupid that definition is.
It's best on best for those countries, since they actually have their best. Once you consider that the tournament is only the second level of a larger tournament though, ie division II, it becomes a bit less feasible. It's a very simple concept, though I agree with your implication that more nuance is needed. Best does not mean "True Hockey Fan's feelings think this is good, so it's best on best!". Best means best, as in the countries can select their best. I don't even know why you are wasting time talking about qualification tournaments, since obviously qualification tournaments aren't best on best. If you are trying to say that the 2002 Olympics were not best on best because Slovakia was not present, then that is a different argument with at least some merit. You won't like going down that path though, since Slovakia obviously was not present at your precious joke tournament.
You are the one who said that a best on best depends on your feelings, which very succinctly shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. As for those opinions, they are idiotic. It's pretty simple. Not everyone's opinion is valuable and worth considering in every instance. If someone tries to claim that a Honda Civic is a truck because it has wheels like a truck, has an engine and can carry things, that doesn't make it acceptable just because someone thinks it. There is a reason that none of these people can actually explain what a best on best is without describing the all star game or the NHL itself - because the definition they are trying to use for best on best is idiotic.
As for where you are coming from with this, you long ago gave away any shred of credibility you might have had regarding that tournament. Among other things, you claimed that your feelings are criteria to decide if a tournament is best on best, you claimed that the pre-tournament games were more serious than Stanley Cup playoff games, that it could rival the 2014 Olympics for viewership and that any format the NHL uses is better than any other format. You also humourously threatened to silence anyone who correctly called the tournament meaningless... by posting random picture of women. Your agenda to promote the NHL's joke tournament, objectivity or rationality be damned, is very clear.
Still waiting for anyone to post the definition of best-of-best that will describe this World Cup.
The argument that 50% of people think it is won't cut it.
Whenever they try to define it, they just describe the NHL all star game or the NHL itself. Basically an idiotic definition of best players against best players, regardless of how the teams are formed. True Hockey Fan humourously put a different spin on it by claiming that his feelings about the tournament are part of the criteria for best on best.
I will add this - I've grown tired of discussing the 2016 World Cup and what it was or wasn't, given that the unpleasantness has already concluded. I am hopeful that the conversation surrounding the 2020 edition, should it happen, is different. On to the WJC, which is another example pertaining to the thread that conveys that international hockey is not dead.
Last edited:
Not sure how anyone can argue with this. There is no dictionary definition for best on best, there is however a dictionary for the word opinion. And opinions in this case to indeed vary (despite the best efforts of the definition police
Jesus, since when everything must be in legal acts, dictionary etc? Its a notoriously known usage/ custom. To get that status you have to use it in same way/meaning for long time. And that is what people has been doing in this case. So, sorry you came too late with your opinion to change what has been settled for decades. You actually create situations which does not fit into this definition pretending that this term can have different meaning. It doesnt.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
In red:
Jesus, since when everything must be in legal acts, dictionary etc? Its a notoriously known usage/ custom. To get that status you have to use it in same way/meaning for long time.
"Same way" and "long time" are subjective terms. Do you see the problem here? It's the same problem that you have with the term best on best - there is no black and white definition and therefore it's precise meaning is not 100% clear.
And that is what people has been doing in this case. So, sorry you came too late with your opinion to change what has been settled for decades. You actually create situations which does not fit into this definition pretending that this term can have different meaning. It doesn't.
No sir, sorry but you're way off. My opinion isn't the topic of discussion, you obviously missed it but I said I don't consider the World Cup best on best. Therefore, all this crap about me coming too late etc. is just nonsense. Now I've also said that the World Cup was close enough to best on best that the difference is very minor and not worth getting all lathered up over. I still don't know why some people want to make a federal case out of it. Opinions clearly vary on this, all I'm saying is that I respect other people's opinions in this case and have no proof to show they are wrong. You disagree and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Do you see what I did there?
Apologize,I didnt read all previous posts. I dont see issue with defining this WC either. As to definition.I use analogy to int. law or law generally where these legal customs are among other legal sources together with int. contracts etc. And frankly its well proven. Shame that TSN changed their websites and there are no more discussions under WHC topics repeating "****, its not BOB, SC playoff in full swing". And I am pretty sure this goes back to 72. I hardly doubt that someone ever used it in other way. I mean has it ever comes to you mind that there is Na24 and USA over 24 in one int. tourney playing against regular teams?
So no, I can not respect other opinions in this specific case. Its the same as if I said that WHC is BOB becuase there is best Czech republic minus some NHL players. BOB strictly means no burdens or obstacles in picking players. If the US team was named USA over 23 or whatever age limit it was, I would say its absurd and completely twisted but you can literally call it unfair BOB. They represent the USA and they were not allowed to pick some guys. Same as in WHC. So its clear.
I just hate twisting facts or notoriously known things...Still its not important discussion because the importance of the tourney is almost the same. It was just weird concept causing this meaningful discussions....
The origin of the term Best on Best relates to creating the Canada Cup to allow countries to take their best players, regardless of it they were professionals or not. The term relates to the obvious fact that Canada couldn't have their best compete against the Soviets best in the 1970s because NHLers were excluded from the Olympics.
Best on best in hockey only ever refers to international hockey. Otherwise it would basically mean nothing as it could apply to any league outside of junior hockey.
- Status
