In other Olympic sports....where the Olympics is far and away the pinnacle of their sport...I think it makes more sense to have a bronze medal game. In this, with multi-million dollar professional athletes who are used to competing for championships only...I think it makes more sense to scrap it. It means something to the smaller countries...and I think the smiles afterwards is almost a bittersweet moment and just the result of winning. In the NHL, players still smile if they win a game with no playoff implications...as they are competitive players who like to win.
Should we eliminate the bronze medal game?
- Thread starter Dontdive
- Start date
Hand of Gaudreau
Gaudreaubey Baker
The point of your argument is moot after this Olympics, as NHLers will not be going back.
Canuck21t
Registered User
No it doesn't make sense AT ALL. You want ice hockey to be the ONLY sport in all the Olympics, winter and summer, to scrap the bronze medal?! When the pro players accept to join the Olympic team, they're not playing for themselves or the hockey team anymore but for the whole national Olympic team. If you're not going to make your country proud by doing your best, then don't come and stay home. If there will be a World Cup, then ok, never mind the bronze, but NOT at the Olympics. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I know this will NEVER happen; no one with an once of logic will accept this.
Why would they eliminate the Bronze? There's absolutely no reason or precedent for it. The U.S. wanted to win that game they just didn't. Selanne scored on a beautifully placed and deceptive backhand. The Americans had a brain fart and Finland scored a second goal but the U.S absolutely dominated after that second goal, they pressed has hard as they could to cut that lead before the period ended. It wasn't till after the 3rd goal that they mailed it in.
KeepCalmandCorsiOn
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2013
- 683
- 0
The Bronze medal is disappointing for a top team but eliminating the game for that reason doesn't resolve a thing. Winning an Olympic medal is still a special level of achievement that few get to celebrate.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Positive
Enjoy your flight
The thread starter's argument appears to based on two assumptions:
1) It's too 'cruel' to make them play another game since they just lost in the semi-finals.
2) The teams involved never care, don't play their hardest, and so we get 'bad hockey'.
Getting a chance to represent your country on the international stage for bronze medal...heck in any competition, even if it was just a friendly competition, is huge. Bragging rights. That's not cruel. Cruel is travelling to the Olympics, getting injured during a downhill training run or something, after devoting 4-8 hours a day of yourself to the event for the last 4 years, and not even being able to compete.
This is the Olympics. Try telling any non-medal-contender, in any event, that they shouldn't finish their final leg/run/ski/skate/throw/swim/lift/jump because they don't have a mathematical chance for a gold or silver. That will go over well. Because you're doing them a favor.
As for the teams 'not caring', judging by the reactions of the Finnish team and the Swiss women's team, there were at least 2 teams that cared a heck of a lot. There will always be at least two teams that care enough to fight out a win for a bronze, and two nations that will cheer them on and be entertained. Will one team care more than another? Sure, maybe. But you can't make that assumption, and you can't assume 'bad hockey' is the result either.
Finally....as a hockey fan, why would you want to see less hockey?
1) It's too 'cruel' to make them play another game since they just lost in the semi-finals.
2) The teams involved never care, don't play their hardest, and so we get 'bad hockey'.
Getting a chance to represent your country on the international stage for bronze medal...heck in any competition, even if it was just a friendly competition, is huge. Bragging rights. That's not cruel. Cruel is travelling to the Olympics, getting injured during a downhill training run or something, after devoting 4-8 hours a day of yourself to the event for the last 4 years, and not even being able to compete.
This is the Olympics. Try telling any non-medal-contender, in any event, that they shouldn't finish their final leg/run/ski/skate/throw/swim/lift/jump because they don't have a mathematical chance for a gold or silver. That will go over well. Because you're doing them a favor.
As for the teams 'not caring', judging by the reactions of the Finnish team and the Swiss women's team, there were at least 2 teams that cared a heck of a lot. There will always be at least two teams that care enough to fight out a win for a bronze, and two nations that will cheer them on and be entertained. Will one team care more than another? Sure, maybe. But you can't make that assumption, and you can't assume 'bad hockey' is the result either.
Finally....as a hockey fan, why would you want to see less hockey?
Agreed. You can't get rid of it so long as it's an Olympic sport, nor should it be eliminated.
Having said that, the question is of some legitimacy for Canadians, since the mentality here is truly one of gold or bust. Look at Canada's record in bronze medal games--it's beyond pathetic. Canadian teams simply cannot get up for those games because the disappointment of missing out the day before on the opportunity to win a gold medal is too much to overcome prior to the bronze medal game. But that's not the Olympics' problem; that's Canada's problem. I doubt there will ever be a change to the mindset, however, and Canada has to therefore accept the fact that they will rarely be listed as bronze medal winners. That in turn has an impact on the country's medal count in hockey and also on its world ranking. But Canadian players, try as they might to show up, just don't care about such things; anything short of gold is a failure and if they lose out on the gold medal game there's just no more will to compete. That in turn comes from the concept of the Stanley Cup; if you lose the Stanley Cup final you've achieved nothing. We simply don't have a podium mindset when it comes to hockey. It's Stanley Cup or loser; it's gold medal or loser.
This suggestion is about as lame-ass as anything that I have ever read on these boards. If a team comes over just for the Gold, maybe they should stay home because they sure as hell don't understand the Olympics. If athletes are going to behave like spoiled brat, privileged wussies who can only play for the Gold and nothing else, they bloody well deserve to go home without a medal no matter where they are from.
Dod93Cityt
Do You Believe In Ghosts?
capebretoncanadien
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 3,946
- 0
I keep reading posts here(which may be mistake #1) and people think eliminating the game means eliminating the medal. I haven't seen anyone say that. Only that having to play that game is quite cruel.
Like someone said, they don't expect boxers to box another match after losing the semifinals. Why do we expect teams to play another hockey game? If two boxers can get a bronze, why would it be bad with hockey?
Like someone said, they don't expect boxers to box another match after losing the semifinals. Why do we expect teams to play another hockey game? If two boxers can get a bronze, why would it be bad with hockey?
Sonofamitch
Registered User
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
The Enemy Within
Holl at .6 seconds
While it definitely doesn't mean the same to professional players at the time to win the bronze medal. I am pretty sure it would still mean a lot to them somewhere down the road in their lives. Plus I'm sure there are plenty of Finnish players who are very happy to bring another medal home to their country. I'm sure the United States players would have been too had they won. So no I don't think it should be eliminated. Plus you can't change the way the olympics awards medals simply based on one sport.
There's a slight difference in sheer physical taxation. If you don't believe me - try it.
Canuck21t
Registered User
You're absolutely right. My bad, I misread the thread. It makes a lot more sense now, but I'd still vote no.
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
You can't win when you've already lost. Finishing 3rd instead of 4th wouldn't have made this a better result for the Americans. Their tournament ended when they lost to Canada. For North Americans there's just no pride in playing for 3rd place. It's an all or nothing mentality that Europeans just don't understand.
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Wayne Gretzky
Joe Sakic
Patrick Roy
Steve Yzerman
Ray Bourque
Chris Pronger
Scott Stevens
Brendan Shanahan
Al MacInnis
Rob Blake
Are these overprivileged wussies?
Canuck21t
Registered User
The all-or-nothing is an arrogant mentality. Back in 1998 when it was the first time the pros were allowed, some Canadians had that mentality and it was a disgraceful attitude that cost Gretzky his only chance at an Olympic medal. I don't think the current crop of professional athletes think this way. One may have a more uphill battle psychologically, but they would still all try to win the bronze for the country.
Last edited:
chauron
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2014
- 2,335
- 1,153
Just look at the poll results. No way in hell it should not be eliminated, it'd be against olympic spirit and rules even, plus athletes value it high. Thank god no few north american posters can make that decision.
Or should we then align and remove the bronze from rest of the sports too? Hell no
Or should we then align and remove the bronze from rest of the sports too? Hell no
Canuck21t
Registered User
If indeed that's the mentality they had, then yes, they were a disgrace no matter who they were. But I don't think they were all like that.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 12Staked: $21,883.00Event closes - 2 days from now- Updated: