Like you haven't heard it: Paul Henderson's goal

[Urbanskog]

A rather comedic gesture considering how fundamentally opposed the NHL (including these two teams) are to the international game.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Oh boy

Miracle on ice had bigger cultural and political impact than the summit series. MOI started the fall of communism. Miracle on ice is brought up often when talking about sports in general, not just hockey.

 

[Golden_Jet]

In 1999 (5 years before Miracle), Sports Illustrated had a big, well publicized series on the 100 Greatest Sports Moments of the 20th Century. Miracle on Ice was #1.

Shocking an American mag picks an American moment

 

[Tripledeke333]

In 1999 (5 years before Miracle), Sports Illustrated had a big, well publicized series on the 100 Greatest Sports Moments of the 20th Century. Miracle on Ice was #1.

That’s because Sports Illustrated has a largely American audience, and there are limited international tournaments for the sports America is most concerned about. I guarantee you that most Canadian Sports/Hockey magazines would rank the Summit Series#1. I also believe that Canadians know/care/value the Summit Series much more than the Americans and Lake Placid.

 

[heretik27]

I enjoyed the clip in the OP. You can even see Pete Mahovlich #20 give the goalie a stick tap to the pads out of respect after celebrating with his teammates on his way out of the celebratory huddle around 43 seconds into the video.

 

[Czechboy]

This is becoming my fav thread on hfboards and I say that on a day where Eduard sale was ranked number 2 on buttons rankings.lol.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

Shocking an American mag picks an American moment

No shit

 

[jj cale]

In Canada.

When hockey can beat poker broadcasts in the U.S drop me a line.

In 1999 (5 years before Miracle), Sports Illustrated had a big, well publicized series on the 100 Greatest Sports Moments of the 20th Century. Miracle on Ice was #1.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Doshell Propivo]

That’s because Sports Illustrated has a largely American audience, and there are limited international tournaments for the sports America is most concerned about. I guarantee you that most Canadian Sports/Hockey magazines would rank the Summit Series#1. I also believe that Canadians know/care/value the Summit Series much more than the Americans and Lake Placid.

Well yeah! That was my whole point all along! For Americans, in the US, Lake Placid is, by far, the biggest hockey moment. And for many, the biggest sports moment.

 

[jj cale]

This is becoming my fav thread on hfboards and I say that on a day where Eduard sale was ranked number 2 on buttons rankings.lol.

well theres a lot of meat here CB.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

When hockey can beat poker broadcasts in the U.S drop me a line.


I wonder why that is?

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

 

[jj cale]

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

You are.

 

[Czechboy]

well theres a lot of meat here CB.

I am in shock no one has mentioned the broken leg yet.lol

 

[jj cale]

I am in shock no one has mentioned the broken leg yet.lol

Should arrive in short order.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I am in shock no one has mentioned the broken leg yet.lol

The Americans didn't need to break any legs to beat the USSR. The influence of the summit series stops at the Canadian border.

 

[jj cale]

Your influence stops at your mouth.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

In my opinion, which a lot of others share, they are the big three. Kind of like the three pyramids. They dominate the setting but one, Lemieux's, is slightly smaller. Think in terms of games and 02 Salt Lake fills in for the Sphinx.


Some games were more charged then. Not sure if we want to return to those days.

@Czechboy

What about 2010? Where does that rank?

I agree '72 is #1.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Instead of celebrating the 50 year anniversary in here, one poster comes in and says our moment is better and derails thread.

 

[jj cale]

A singular transcendent moment in hockey history.

 

[Czechboy]

@Czechboy

What about 2010? Where does that rank?

I agree '72 is #1.

Probably lower ... 2005 was a unofficial best on best, the run of 3 consectutive golds would probably be higher and the first every gold for the Czechs probably would too...

It was a run for the ages and, realistically, a cinderella run with our B team at the time. Eg. the year after (2011 - Bratislava) we sent an A team, only lost one match and got Bronze.lol I think the 2010 team had a .500 record or near it but won all the important games with hard work, lots of luck and a few very generous bounces. Beating a stacked Russian team is always good for my people as that gold game was a mismatch for sure.

Having said that.. the reason it's remembered so much (and going back to this post theme with commentators and glorious goals) that was the Karel Rachunek year with some big goals and plays including the final second goal against Sweden to force a shootout where the Czech HOF commentator was screaming 'Rachna Kachna' (no idea how to spell that) but that moment has probably been replayed a million times by Czech people like me.lol Of course, Rachunek was part of the deadly plane crash a few years later.

 

[Gold Standard]

A singular transcendent moment in hockey history.

was the '72 Summit Series. (Finished it for you)

Nothing comes even remotely close.

But there should be another Summit Series. A new Summit Series between the Two Top countries on the international stage, Canada and USA. Maybe someday soon.

 

[Czechboy]

Instead of celebrating the 50 year anniversary in here, one poster comes in and says our moment is better and derails thread.

Do any international goals or games that stand out in other nations, like Henderson's does in Canada?

In fariness, golden jet, the OP asks in his second post what other countries big moments were.

 

[jj cale]

was the '72 Summit Series. (Finished it for you)

Nothing comes even remotely close.

But there should be another Summit Series. A new Summit Series between the Two Top countries on the international stage, Canada and USA. Maybe someday soon.

couldn't agree more, the Summit series is the pinnacle in hockey no question.

I have a feeling we are going to get that Canada-U.S series within 10 years GS.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

@Czechboy

What about 2010? Where does that rank?

I agree '72 is #1.

Hi Sergei.

Writing as one who saw all of the games we're discussing here, while aware of what's going on, I would say the best question, for Canadians wondering about 72 v 2010, is which competition was the most urgent one to win in Canada and the answer for me is a definite, 1972.

Both were arguably as 'big' as each other, as was Salt Lake 02, in terms of audience focus and stuff. 87 was not, because as with 96, the Canada Cup/NHL World Cup came during times when mainly hockey people were aware of what was coming or unfolding - last summer and all that.

One difference between 2010 and 1972 is that by 2010 - our various best on best victories notwithstanding - Canadians had learned how to lose at the highest level. Had we lost to any of the hockey's major powers, or even the likes of Switzerland again, at the mass cultural level, while (always) very disappointing, it would not have been entirely unexpected.

1972 was different, and certainly more than the Cold War drama that the Summit Series is generally portrayed as being all about. Canadians had a much more long-standing beef, and one that had absolutely nothing to do with the Soviets players and coaches. Since sometimes in the 1950s the International Olympic Committee and the IIHF had made a very conscious decision to allow Eastern bloc nations to use professional athletes WHILE claiming to profess a commitment to amateurism at the same time. Of course, this kind of hypocrisy pervaded sports culture at that time, as it would for a couple or few decades more. But in Canada's case it was personal. Canadian ice hockey had played a vital role in elevating the IIHF brand, and previous administrations consistently turned their back on Canada. At the drop of a hat, or so it seems in hindsight, the IIHF abandon its besty in aligning with the IOC.

At first this was surely no big deal, because Canadians were so much better in hockey in general. But at some point, as the world was realizing that the IOC had some sort of major disconnect with "shamateurism," it started to become a situation that really required remedy, if truly fair competition is one's aim. Neither the IIHF nor the IOC did anything about it. Our greatest gift to the planet in sports was co-opted by bureaucrats who didn't belong in sports to begin with, owing to their demented priorities. This was the direct consequence to Canadians of that time, having to watch an ongoing experience of cultural appropriation at the international level.

By 1972 those who had been born in 1954 were just finishing high school, and had never seen a fair international hockey tournament, thanks to both the IIHF and IOC. This beef was never about the Soviet players or coaches, and perhaps the greatest proof of that is how kindly both were received in the first four games of the Summit Series, by Canadians. But as we all learned later, in various contexts that went beyond the referring in Europe, Team Canada 1972's treatment by Soviet administrators was, apparently, dark and ongoing. While I get what my peers say, about this turning into a predominantly Cold War battle in Moscow, there really is NO WAY that one can separate that experience from the decades-long collusion of both the IOC and the IIHF which, in 1972, was still ongoing and showed no end in sight. All three pointed to the same objective, from the Canadian point of view: Do whatever it takes to beat the Canadians on the international stage and their game. I would say that 1972 was more urgent than 2010 because victory was tied to cultural identity and an ongoing sense of injustice that Canadians of that time were forced to be reminded of from the time the Summit Series segued to Europe, and then again at the start of Game Eight.

This is not to understate the urgency of 2010, mind you. The build up and unfolding then was no less 'big', but the passion was generated from a different source. I was in Vancouver throughout the Games, and in the months leading up to those Winter Olympics I felt - or thought I felt - a most unusual sense of optimism at the collective level, that we were going to do really well these upcoming games. That's one of my own lingering memories of 2010. At some point it seemed like the optimism became voracious. Maybe it had something to do with the dream of winning gold in men's hockey, at home, being something that was, for Canadians, too good NOT to become true.

 

[jj cale]

Hi Sergei.

Writing as one who saw all of the games we're discussing here, while aware of what's going on, I would say the best question, for Canadians wondering about 72 v 2010, is which competition was the most urgent one to win in Canada and the answer for me is a definite, 1972.

Both were arguably as 'big' as each other, as was Salt Lake 02, in terms of audience focus and stuff. 87 was not, because as with 96, the Canada Cup/NHL World Cup came during times when mainly hockey people were aware of what was coming or unfolding - last summer and all that.

One difference between 2010 and 1972 is that by 2010 - our various best on best victories notwithstanding - Canadians had learned how to lose at the highest level. Had we lost to any of the hockey's major powers, or even the likes of Switzerland again, at the mass cultural level, while (always) very disappointing, it would not have been entirely unexpected.

1972 was different, and certainly more than the Cold War drama that the Summit Series is generally portrayed as being all about. Canadians had a much more long-standing beef, and one that had absolutely nothing to do with the Soviets players and coaches. Since sometimes in the 1950s the International Olympic Committee and the IIHF had made a very conscious decision to allow Eastern bloc nations to use professional athletes WHILE claiming to profess a commitment to amateurism at the same time. Of course, this kind of hypocrisy pervaded sports culture at that time, as it would for a couple or few decades more. But in Canada's case it was personal. Canadian ice hockey had played a vital role in elevating the IIHF brand, and previous administrations consistently turned their back on Canada. At the drop of a hat, or so it seems in hindsight, the IIHF abandon its besty in aligning with the IOC.

At first this was surely no big deal, because Canadians were so much better in hockey in general. But at some point, as the world was realizing that the IOC had some sort of major disconnect with "shamateurism," it started to become a situation that really required remedy, if truly fair competition is one's aim. Neither the IIHF nor the IOC did anything about it. Our greatest gift to the planet in sports was co-opted by bureaucrats who didn't belong in sports to begin with, owing to their demented priorities. This was the direct consequence to Canadians of that time, having to watch an ongoing experience of cultural appropriation at the international level.

By 1972 those who had been born in 1954 were just finishing high school, and had never seen a fair international hockey tournament, thanks to both the IIHF and IOC. This beef was never about the Soviet players or coaches, and perhaps the greatest proof of that is how kindly both were received in the first four games of the Summit Series, by Canadians. But as we all learned later, in various contexts that went beyond the referring in Europe, Team Canada 1972's treatment by Soviet administrators was, apparently, dark and ongoing. While I get what my peers say, about this turning into a predominantly Cold War battle in Moscow, there really is NO WAY that one can separate that experience from the decades-long collusion of both the IOC and the IIHF which, in 1972, was still ongoing and showed no end in sight. All three pointed to the same objective, from the Canadian point of view: Do whatever it takes to beat the Canadians on the international stage and their game. I would say that 1972 was more urgent than 2010 because victory was tied to cultural identity and an ongoing sense of injustice that Canadians of that time were forced to be reminded of from the time the Summit Series segued to Europe, and then again at the start of Game Eight.

This is not to understate the urgency of 2010, mind you. The build up and unfolding then was no less 'big', but the passion was generated from a different source. I was in Vancouver throughout the Games, and in the months leading up to those Winter Olympics I felt - or thought I felt - a most unusual sense of optimism at the collective level, that we were going to do really well these upcoming games. That's one of my own lingering memories of 2010. At some point it seemed like the optimism became voracious. Maybe it had something to do with the dream of winning gold in men's hockey, at home, being something that was, for Canadians, too good NOT to become true.

Great write up.