Will you be OK if fans of the winning country at the 4 Nations refer to their country as the "world champs"?

[The Gr8 Dane]

It's a rinky dinky tournament, and anyways let's be honest, nobody you know watches hockey in real life so it's not like you're gonna hear about it at work

 

[Number8]

I'm gonna call them the Olympic champs. I know it's not the Olympics but I don't see why that would matter.

I think that is absolutely ok.

Each year MLB awards a winner to the World Series. Doesn't seem to bother them that it's just America and Toronto.

Now, if you'll forgive me, I'm off to go fishing in the Gulf of America.

If I remember right, France will be getting Russia's spot should Russia still be banned from participating in 2026. And right now it looks like they will. It's only a week ago that the IIHF had a meeting and decided to prolong the ban through the 2024/2025 season.

Frenchies are a f***ing powerhouse on skates. You watch.

 

[Dirtyclapper]

As exciting as it is to see all the best players available for the national teams again, the tournament in itself is only a cash grab with no history or culture. There's nothing at stake, like, at all. Somehow, even as Swede, I'd be most looking forward to a Canada vs USA final, and even then it would just be for the politics and not for the hockey.

Better than the all-star game/break though isn't it?

 

[NyQuil]

I see the smack talk has already begun

I don't see a lot of reminiscing about the 2016 World Cup even though Canada won.

Gimmick tournaments are what they are.

Now, if you'll forgive me, I'm off to go fishing in the Gulf of America.

No way, I'm a fisherman myself!

Have a trip planned this spring to Lake Canada Is Superior.

 

[ORRFForever]

I don't see a lot of reminiscing about the 2016 World Cup even though Canada won.

Gimmick tournaments are what they are.

As I said elsewhere, American hockey fans are far more pumped for this "tournament" than everyone else combined.

 

[NyQuil]

As I said elsewhere, American hockey fans are far more pumped for this tournament than everyone else combined.

Well they have a good team.

 

[ORRFForever]

Well they have a good team.

So do we.

 

[NyQuil]

So do we.

We usually do at tournaments.

 

[ORRFForever]

We usually do at tournaments.

TBH, I wish I was more hyped about this.

 

[waitin425]

I will refer to them as the most distinguished team of the quasi best on best 4 nations cup thingy.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Nope. Well, I mean, I will be ok of course, but there is only 4 teams competing, and they were hand selected. It isn't a "World Championships" type thing. Still prestigious for the players, but not a World Championship.

 

[SirKillalot]

Nope. Well, I mean, I will be ok of course, but there is only 4 teams competing, and they were hand selected. It isn't a "World Championships" type thing. Still prestigious for the players, but not a World Championship.

You mean like it also is in NFL, NBA and MLB?

 

[ManofSteel55]

You mean like it also is in NFL, NBA and MLB?

I wasn't aware of a 4 Nations football championship where the 4 competing nations are hand selected by the NFL.

 

[SirKillalot]

I wasn't aware of a 4 Nations football championship where the 4 competing nations are hand selected by the NFL.

No, I mean them calling themselves World Champs of different variations.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Canada Cup winners didn't call themselves world champions, so it's no different this time around.

yes but the history forum and others do give a lot of special reverence to those as "best on best" winners, which kinda feels like saying the same thing

 

[Tawnos]

As exciting as it is to see all the best players available for the national teams again, the tournament in itself is only a cash grab with no history or culture. There's nothing at stake, like, at all. Somehow, even as Swede, I'd be most looking forward to a Canada vs USA final, and even then it would just be for the politics and not for the hockey.

Everything that has history and culture once had no history and culture. The only way to get it is to start.

But that being said, claiming there's no history is wrong. The NHL has a long history of putting on international invitational competition. This will be the 11th one that they've done over the course of 53 years. The branding has changed over time. It's only the specifics of this one that led them to call it something other than the World Cup. 1972 and 1974 were the Summit Series, which was just Canada and USSR. 1976-1991 were 5 Canada Cups with 6 teams. 1996, 2004, 2016 were World Cups with 8 teams (though 2016 had two non-national teams with Team Europe and Team North America U23).

What makes this feel like less of a tradition (what you called culture) is the long gaps we've seen. 8 years, 12 years, and 9 years are pretty long gaps that hurts having that feel for this tournament. They'll get back to having that with World Cups in 2028 and 2032, as planned.

 

[NyQuil]

yes but the history forum and others do give a lot of special reverence to those as "best on best" winners, which kinda feels like saying the same thing

Not really.

 

[Nate070]

The question is there really another country/ team that could beat the champs of this tournament though? Maybe Russia but I highly doubt that.

Russia? Are you kidding me?

 

[ToDavid]

I feel like that label isn't used very often in international hockey anyway. Likely in part because the literal "world championship" is not considered to be the premiere international tournament, at least when the NHL is at the Olympics.

In theory I don't really care either way. It's probably the closest thing we've had to a legit best-on-best in a while. Olympics next year will certainly hold more weight.

 

[NyQuil]

Everything that has history and culture once had no history and culture. The only way to get it is to start.

But that being said, claiming there's no history is wrong. The NHL has a long history of putting on international invitational competition. This will be the 11th one that they've done over the course of 53 years. The branding has changed over time. It's only the specifics of this one that led them to call it something other than the World Cup. 1972 and 1974 were the Summit Series, which was just Canada and USSR. 1976-1991 were 5 Canada Cups with 6 teams. 1996, 2004, 2016 were World Cups.

What makes this feel like less of a tradition (what you called culture) is the long gaps we've seen. 8 years, 12 years, and 9 years are pretty long gaps that hurts having that feel for this tournament. They'll get back to having that with World Cups in 2028 and 2032, as planned.

The Canada Cups are acknowledged because they were the only tournaments where teams had access to their entire complement of NHLers.

Once the Olympics came along, the NHLers hosting their own internal tournament lost a lot of its lustre as the major international hockey tournament.

Does 2004 or 2016 resonate anywhere near the Olympics of 1998 onwards? Or with the World Cup of 1996? Or with the Canada Cups of the 80s?

No one brings them up because they were seen as unnecessary with the Olympics taking on the role as the penultimate best-on-best tournament where all teams could qualify and participate (Slovakia having a bit of a rough time of it but eventually they did).

The NHL's interests will never dovetail nicely with the needs of a credible international tournament:

1. True "best on best" means that players in European domestic leagues will also be available.

2. Some of the best teams in the world aren't included (e.g. Switzerland, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belarus etc.). Teams that have won against the elite in previous best-on-best tourneys.

3. It has to be solely hosted in Europe at some point. Like the "World Championships" (which induce eye-rolling here in Canada due to their fixation on Europe), the World Cup/Four Nations/What Have You will never have any real international credibility if it is hosted in North America only.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Not really.

You're out to lunch if you think the Canada Cups aren't considered to hold prestige as "best on best" titles and the implication behind it.

 

[Linds]

Russia? Are you kidding me?

Team Russia would be old AF, but they would be the only country that would have a remote chance at beating Sweden/ USA/ CAN/FINN. You think any other country could beat them or place higher if there was a larger round robin tournament? I don't see it at all

 

[NyQuil]

You're out to lunch if you think the Canada Cups aren't considered to hold prestige as "best on best" titles and the implication behind it.

That's because there was no alternative at the time.

Now that the Olympics have finally evolved into a best-on-best tournament, these new NHL-run tournaments are taking a back seat.

I still don't remember anything about "World Champions". Ultimately it was about challenging and beating one team and one team only until about 1991.

Most people don't even remember the results against the other teams.

 

[Nate070]

Team Russia would be old AF, but they would be the only country that would have a remote chance at beating Sweden/ USA/ CAN/FINN. You think any other country could beat them or place higher if there was a larger round robin tournament? I don't see it at all

I don´t think any other team could get higher than them but they are a bunch of old chokers

 

[Elvs]

Better than the all-star game/break though isn't it?

A 100 percent. My point, albeit I didn't make it very clear, was in regards to thread title. I will watch and enjoy this litte tournament for what it is, but because there's only four teams and nothing really at stake, I don't think anyone will confuse the winner here for being "world champions". It's basically a warm up tournament for the 2026 Olympics. And that's fine. It'll be fun to see the best players together on these national teams for the first time in a very long time.