its a tournament that is populated not by the upper echelons of talent but some different metric. in the tournament of steves, you need to be named steve to participate. in the olympics, you need to be available which exlcudes the overwhelming number of players with the best talent. this makes the oympics something between the spengler cup and the world shampionships.
I think as a ranking function, best on best can be used to determine relative rank ( kind of the purpose of competition) once you start self selecting based on something other than talent, it can be competitive but I'm not sure I really care that canada's third tier players are better than some other country's third tier players . Same way I really don't care if canada could put together a team of redheads that could beat any other countries red heads or if canada were more competitive wrt to the us in basketball if you limited the players heights to six feet or below.
The cache of the olypics ( for hockey at least) is that for the last 20 years, it WAS best on best. Without that, it's a gussied up spengler cup even if it occurs under the rings. color me nonplussed.
Ironically I like the WJHC even though its not great hockey. Maybe I would want my country to win the tournament of steves.