Which tournaments matter in which countries?

[Jablkon]

Wait, you think Euros would stop coming to the NHL if there was no WHC? Haha, ok. You can have the WHC, just don't expect NA to care.

Like I said, if the other leagues ever get on a par with the NHL, then they can talk about expanding the International scene. Like I said earlier, in soccer you can actually debate who is better, Man City or Barcelona, Munich or Roma, etc. Can debate which league is best. With hockey, there is no such argument. Well, I guess you can argue about the best teams, but the argument would be be strictly amongst the NHL teams. If Euros stopped coming to the NHL, then maybe it could happen.

No WHC = less hockey popularity = less parents willing to bring their childs to stadiums = less europeans in NHL. You have to notify that there is nothing like hockey country in Europe. The popularity is mostly divided between soccer and hockey while hockey is generally consider as a little bit less accessible sport (it is always easier to let your kid play for example floorball than hockey).

Btw comparing best teams -for sure on paper but I wouldn't be surpised if best KHL teams beat any NHL team in some short tourney.

 

[xxxx]

No WHC = less hockey popularity = less parents willing to bring their childs to stadiums = less europeans in NHL. You have to notify that there is nothing like hockey country in Europe. The popularity is mostly divided between soccer and hockey while hockey is generally consider as a little bit less accessible sport (it is always easier to let your kid play for example floorball than hockey).

Btw comparing best teams -for sure on paper but I wouldn't be surpised if best KHL teams beat any NHL team in some short tourney.

It's not a bad idea to have a bigger tournament, where the players from european leagues can play, etc. I think it is a good idea, I agree it is an opportunity for growing the sport, and also an opportunity for players who would not represent their countries at olympics otherwise.

But, don't call that tournament World Championships, when it's not World Championships. The winner is not a world champion. Call it the IIHF cup, or just Hockey Cup. That's what truly describes the form of it.

When I decide to have a hockey tournament in my hometown, with my friends, and I e-mail the best players in the world to join me, and I will call it the World Championships, if the star players say no, it's really true that if I, with my friends, win the tournament, am a world champion, just because the tournament is called like that? The analogy is not perfect here, but I believe you get it.

 

[jekoh]

When I decide to have a hockey tournament in my hometown, with my friends, and I e-mail the best players in the world to join me, and I will call it the World Championships, if the star players say no, it's really true that if I, with my friends, win the tournament, am a world champion, just because the tournament is called like that?

No, because you're not the sport's governing body and the tournament is not properly organized.

The winner of the Olympic football tournament is still the olympic champion even if most of the top players don't play.

 

[xxxx]

No, because you're not the sport's governing body and the tournament is not properly organized.

The winner of the Olympic football tournament is still the olympic champion even if most of the top players don't play.

Yes. But everyone knows, both the players and the fans, that the winner is not the best team in the world, no one will suddenly say that the winner is better than Spain and now it's up to Spain to win another tournament to get back their number one position, that's nonsense, do you agree?

And, the summer olympics ARE properly organized. The soccer winner is still not a true world champion though.

Having the NHL organize the World Cup is a proper organization. If the NHL is able to get the agreement with the KHL and other european leagues and are able to bring the best players from all around the world, then it's ok to me.

 

[jekoh]

Yes. But everyone knows, both the players and the fans, that the winner is not the best team in the world, no one will suddenly say that the winner is better than Spain and now it's up to Spain to win another tournament to get back their number one position, that's nonsense, do you agree?

The World Cup decides who is the World Cup winner, the World Championships decide who is the world champion, and the Olympics decide who is the Olympic champion. Nothing more, nothing less.

And, the summer olympics ARE properly organized. The soccer winner is still not a true world champion though.

Of course they're not the world champions, they're the Olympic champions. The winners of the ice hockey Olympics are not world champions either.

 

[xxxx]

The World Cup decides who is the World Cup winner, the World Championships decide who is the world champion, and the Olympics decide who is the Olympic champion. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are right, but the problem is, that world championships sounds different that what it is.

Of course they're not the world champions, they're the Olympic champions. The winners of the ice hockey Olympics are not world champions either.

The olympic champions in hockey are the real winners, champions, the truly best. The olympic champions in soccer are not the real champions, they are not truly best in the world in the sport of soccer.

 

[Lepardi]

You have to notify that there is nothing like hockey country in Europe.

There is a country in Europe where ice hockey is by far the number one sport. It's called Finland.

The popularity is mostly divided between soccer and hockey while hockey is generally consider as a little bit less accessible sport (it is always easier to let your kid play for example floorball than hockey).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are more registered curling players in Canada than there are hockey players. And there are more registered soccer players in USA than there are football players. Sure there are loads of people in Finland who have floorball as a hobby, but the sport is nowhere near ice hockey in popularity when it comes to spectator sports. I play floorball recreationally myself, but I haven't gone skating for a couple of years. I watch about two or three games of floorball a year, and I watch about 200 games of ice hockey. This is not uncommon among Finns.

 

[jekoh]

The olympic champions in hockey are the real winners, champions, the truly best.

Fine, but they are still not the world champions.

The olympic champions in soccer are not the real champions, they are not truly best in the world in the sport of soccer.

Fine, but they are still Olympic champions.

 

[Lepardi]

wjc is huge in sweden.

Let's say we have a WJC in Finland and then we have WHC in Finland. Which one of these tournaments is gonna draw a bigger TV audience in Sweden? Are you really trying to say it's the WJC?

 

[Lepardi]

They think that gold is gold, no matter what tournament it is from so in their eyes WHC gold 95/2011 are the biggest accomplishments in Finnish hockey history, not Olympic silver/bronze or World cup silver or the WJC 2014 gold(only kids tournament in their eyes)

The WJC is a kids' tournament. The Finnish WHC team would beat the hell out of the Finnish WJC team. They have players from Mestis in the Finnish team for the WJC.

In Finland many hockey enthusiasts (seems like you're one of them) like to hype up the WJC and say that the WHC is a pretty meaningless tournament, because that's a way for them to make themselves feel like elite hockey followers. The WJC must be very cool, because it's followed closely in Canada, and Canada is a foreign country. It's almost like you're from Canada yourself when you let everybody know that you don't care about the WHC, because the hillbillies of Finland follow the tournament so intensely. It's a kind of hipster mentality, where you're very eager to show everybody that you really are a unique human-being. The truth is that the level of play in the WHC is way superior to the level of play in the WJC. The WJC MVP and the leader of the gold medal winning Finnish team didn't even make the Finnish team for the WHC in 2014. That pretty much sums up the difference of the level of competition in those tournaments.

 

[Jablkon]

It's not a bad idea to have a bigger tournament, where the players from european leagues can play, etc. I think it is a good idea, I agree it is an opportunity for growing the sport, and also an opportunity for players who would not represent their countries at olympics otherwise.

But, don't call that tournament World Championships, when it's not World Championships. The winner is not a world champion. Call it the IIHF cup, or just Hockey Cup. That's what truly describes the form of it.

I wouldn't like to change the name. It was historically true world championship. Just Canada was so much ahead of the rest that they could afford to send Trail Smoke eaters to win it (nothing against them, without them there would be no czech hockey as we know it and no one cared about time collision. Everything changed with devolepment of this sport. Calling it european champ would be the step back (btw is that mean that NA teams would not come?). I just think that Canada should find the way how to use this tourney more effective, or benefit form it... No one doubt about canadian position now. I even think this is the strongest canadian generation in last 20 years.WHC results can not change it. But it is obviously high quality tourney so it is a shame that you have so many refusals (if you, I do not actually know what is the key to choose canadian players...).

 

[Jablkon]

There is a country in Europe where ice hockey is by far the number one sport. It's called Finland.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are more registered curling players in Canada than there are hockey players. And there are more registered soccer players in USA than there are football players. Sure there are loads of people in Finland who have floorball as a hobby, but the sport is nowhere near ice hockey in popularity when it comes to spectator sports. I play floorball recreationally myself, but I haven't gone skating for a couple of years. I watch about two or three games of floorball a year, and I watch about 200 games of ice hockey. This is not uncommon among Finns.

Sorry I was not sure about Finnland when I posted it. I should skip them from this simplyfication. I agree that you can not compare popularity of hockey and for example floorball. But as you said - it is specator popularity which does not say anything about active players. So I think hockey still has to fight for its position to be attractive sport not even for kids but also for parents. And at least in my country - we grow up on watching/playing national league (step 1), watching/playing for national team in WHC (step 2).Now you have olympics as step 3 which is something like cherry on a cake in 4 years period. I can not even imagine what would happen here if you delete step 2.....It is so much historically done that it would have drastic impact in my opinion....

 

[Jonimaus]

Many of my friends who would have trouble naming more than 2 hockey players watch WHC. It's great for casual fans, and very important to keep the sport relevant.

 

[PurpleMouse]

In Finland many hockey enthusiasts (seems like you're one of them) like to hype up the WJC and say that the WHC is a pretty meaningless tournament, because that's a way for them to make themselves feel like elite hockey followers. The WJC must be very cool, because it's followed closely in Canada, and Canada is a foreign country. It's almost like you're from Canada yourself when you let everybody know that you don't care about the WHC, because the hillbillies of Finland follow the tournament so intensely. It's a kind of hipster mentality, where you're very eager to show everybody that you really are a unique human-being. The truth is that the level of play in the WHC is way superior to the level of play in the WJC. The WJC MVP and the leader of the gold medal winning Finnish team didn't even make the Finnish team for the WHC in 2014. That pretty much sums up the difference of the level of competition in those tournaments.

The skill level is higher at the WHC but the prestige is higher at the WJC because the winning country of the WJC can make a very strong claim to having the best U20 players in the world. Guys in the NHL can distort it a bit, but there's not that many missing. The WHC rosters are completely arbitrary depending on player availability at the time, both with the NHL playoffs and guys who choose to rest nagging injuries because the season is over. And some guys who just plain don't show up. So WJC winner = best underage players in the world, WHC winner = guys that won a random tournament. I think we know which one means more. Not to say there's anything wrong with enjoying the WHC and there are reasons for preferring it, but to dismiss the WJC is silly.

 

[jekoh]

The skill level is higher at the WHC but the prestige is higher at the WJC because the winning country of the WJC can make a very strong claim to having the best U20 players in the world. Guys in the NHL can distort it a bit, but there's not that many missing. The WHC rosters are completely arbitrary depending on player availability at the time, both with the NHL playoffs and guys who choose to rest nagging injuries because the season is over. And some guys who just plain don't show up. So WJC winner = best underage players in the world, WHC winner = guys that won a random tournament. I think we know which one means more. Not to say there's anything wrong with enjoying the WHC and there are reasons for preferring it, but to dismiss the WJC is silly.

The WJC is a kids tournament, of course the WHC means more and has more prestige.

 

[PurpleMouse]

The WJC is a kids tournament, of course the WHC means more and has more prestige.

To win the WJC means your country has the best underaged hockey players in the world or a very strong claim to it.

What does winning the WHC mean?

 

[Lepardi]

To win the WJC means your country has the best underaged hockey players in the world or a very strong claim to it.

If you really think Finland has a very strong claim to having the best underaged hockey players in the world, maybe you should do some research.

Then again: why should you care so much about who has the best U20s in the world? I know the tournament is huge in Canada and it's fashionable to hype up the WJC among European hipster hockey fans, but that doesn't mean that all European hockey followers should feel the same passion for it. No matter how much attention the WJC gets in Canadian media, it will always be just a kids' tournament. I'm not saying the WHC is all that important, but neither is the WJC.

 

[Xokkeu]

The skill level is higher at the WHC but the prestige is higher at the WJC because the winning country of the WJC can make a very strong claim to having the best U20 players in the world. Guys in the NHL can distort it a bit, but there's not that many missing. The WHC rosters are completely arbitrary depending on player availability at the time, both with the NHL playoffs and guys who choose to rest nagging injuries because the season is over. And some guys who just plain don't show up. So WJC winner = best underage players in the world, WHC winner = guys that won a random tournament. I think we know which one means more. Not to say there's anything wrong with enjoying the WHC and there are reasons for preferring it, but to dismiss the WJC is silly.

Plenty of U20 players are missing and I doubt that in any reasonable survey of European fans that they've give credence to your theory that the prestige of the U20s is higher. Only in Canada.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

The skill level is higher at the WHC but the prestige is higher at the WJC because the winning country of the WJC can make a very strong claim to having the best U20 players in the world. Guys in the NHL can distort it a bit, but there's not that many missing. The WHC rosters are completely arbitrary depending on player availability at the time, both with the NHL playoffs and guys who choose to rest nagging injuries because the season is over. And some guys who just plain don't show up. So WJC winner = best underage players in the world, WHC winner = guys that won a random tournament. I think we know which one means more. Not to say there's anything wrong with enjoying the WHC and there are reasons for preferring it, but to dismiss the WJC is silly.

Maybe in Canada - which is typically awful in the WC. I'd be very surprised if most European countries thought that winning a tournament for teenagers was more prestigious than winning WC.

 

[Jablkon]

To win the WJC means your country has the best underaged hockey players in the world or a very strong claim to it.

What does winning the WHC mean?

Winning WJC shows how good is your youth development. These young guys are not complete players and you can not sometimes predict how it will be with them in the future..... It just shows that canadian fans are more focused on best of best...

WHC is mature hockey, WJC is a youth hockey. So maybe you have more hockey enthusiasts, but casual fans in Europe would definetely prefer watching WHC.....

 

[PurpleMouse]

If you really think Finland has a very strong claim to having the best underaged hockey players in the world, maybe you should do some research.

My research was watching the 2014 WJC where Finland won a tournament in which nations formed teams of their best U20 players, which leads to me to believe in 2014 Finland had the best underage group of players. What am I missing here? Are you implying that Finland doesn't deserve the title because they got lucky or it was a fluky victory? The only thing that would discredit is the abscence of NHLers, something that's far more of a problem in the WHC. Finland's WJC win certainly proves their junior supremacy far more than Russia's proves senior supremacy.

Then again: why should you care so much about who has the best U20s in the world? I know the tournament is huge in Canada and it's fashionable to hype up the WJC among European hipster hockey fans, but that doesn't mean that all European hockey followers should feel the same passion for it. No matter how much attention the WJC gets in Canadian media, it will always be just a kids' tournament. I'm not saying the WHC is all that important, but neither is the WJC.

People can watch what they want and there are good reasons to watch both- the difference is that the WJC is actually a measuring stick of something where as the WHC by and large measures nothing.

Plenty of U20 players are missing and I doubt that in any reasonable survey of European fans that they've give credence to your theory that the prestige of the U20s is higher. Only in Canada.

They are? Maybe piles of players are missing and I'm unaware but aside from a hand full of NHLers, I assume all the best players are there, why wouldn't they be? The goal of WHC is apparently to crown a world champion, the goal of the WJC is to crown a world junior champion. In the former example, there's 160 or so guys inelligilbe to compete due to the NHL playoffs, plus dozens of guys who don't show up. This compares to the WJC where there's only a handful or two of guys missing. Which more accurately lives up to is name?

That's another thing- how many guys just no show the WJC because they don't feel like it? Maybe it happens but certainly not to the level of the WHC.

 

[jekoh]

The goal of WHC is apparently to crown a world champion, the goal of the WJC is to crown a world junior champion. In the former example, there's 160 or so guys inelligilbe to compete due to the NHL playoffs, plus dozens of guys who don't show up. This compares to the WJC where there's only a handful or two of guys missing. Which more accurately lives up to is name?

You're moving the goal posts, your original claim was that the prestige of the U20s is higher, not that they more accurately live up to their name.

 

[xxxx]

Winning WJC shows how good is your youth development. These young guys are not complete players and you can not sometimes predict how it will be with them in the future..... It just shows that canadian fans are more focused on best of best...

WHC is mature hockey, WJC is a youth hockey. So maybe you have more hockey enthusiasts, but casual fans in Europe would definetely prefer watching WHC.....

Well, a bit. But not really. If you lose the tournament, it definitely doesn't mean that the group of players will be worse in the future than the opposite team's group of players that you lose with. The same for the opposite.

Canada has not won every world juniors, but it's clear that we have big edge over every other country in terms of long-term development and depth of talent. Canada plays with three teams with Russia every year (QMJHL, OHL, WHL at Subway Superseries), and each one can beat that one Russian team. Then, for example at the World U-17 Hockey Challange, Canada has 3 teams that are superior to every country. Sometimes they lose, sometimes they win. Overall, Canada has 5 teams at that tournament - Pacific, Ontario, Atlantic, West, and Quebec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_U-17_Hockey_Challenge

 

[Lepardi]

My research was watching the 2014 WJC where Finland won a tournament in which nations formed teams of their best U20 players, which leads to me to believe in 2014 Finland had the best underage group of players. What am I missing here?

Finland didn't win because they had the best players, they won because they had the best coaching in the tournament. If Finland's roster really had more class than Canada's, that would mean NHL scouts have absolutely no competence to do their job.

And if we're really talking about the best underaged players, I do think Nathan MacKinnon is better at this point of his career than Aleksander Barkov and Olli Määttä.

 

[TollefsenFan]

In Norway

Nr 1 Olympics

Nr 2 IIHF WHC