World Cup 2016: Best On Best?

[TLeafsFan]

Of course its a best on best tournament. How is that even a question?

Some non-NHL'ers from their respective teams even got to represent their countries if they were considered good enough.

 

[TLeafsFan]

It's best on best just like the All Star game is.

And we all now just how inspired everyone is to watch the all star game. And how revered the winners of that game are.

The all Star game is a pleasure skate. This is not a pleasure skate.

Its world class hockey at its best.

 

[Canuckistani]

They're not the only source. Everywhere I've heard this tournament discussed, it's referred to as best on best with the exception of some nits on this board. I agree that by some definitions it's technically it's not best on best but the de facto result is that it's so close, the difference is only an issue to those who are really looking hard for issues. It seems to me that it's the same people looking for any excuse to dump on this tournament who make a big deal of people referring to it as best on best (who cares), the name of the tournament (who cares), is it international or not (who cares), how the NHL is marketing it (who cares) and so on and so on and so on and on and on. The definition police are working overtime, the rest of us are just enjoying the hockey.

The great irony of this "best-on-best" event is that organizers will be embarrassed beyond belief if either of the two joke teams win, and decided to position TNA in B pool to avoid the embarrassment of playing Canada and USA. It's a sorry event that needs to be concerned about such things.

Again, I wouldn't care if this wasn't what "best-on-best" hockey was likely to be reduced to for the next decade or so.

 

[hitmen19]

It's pretty simple actually to use the meaning that has been widely used for decades now. If this was a new term, it would be worthy of debate. In this instance though it's very simple. Can USA select all of its best players? Can Canada select all of its best players? Can North America select all of its best players? Can Europe select all of its best players? The answer is clearly a no on all counts. If best on best just meant that the best players were there, we would have spent the last few decades calling the NHL and the all star game best on best, and yet we didn't. Because the term obviously means more than that.

Once again though, people are free to enjoy the all star exhibition all they like. Most of the world's best are certainly there. No need to lie about what this tournament is though.

Sorry, just because you have a particular definition that you use to classify which tournaments fall into what category, doesn't mean everyone else does. When debating people from Russia, they like to use Challenger cup and rendevouz as best on bests. Many Europeans say Canada cups weren't because nhl refs, biases, blah blah blah. Some people like to use world championships in lock out years because every country had access to best players.

So again, can you point to where the "official best on best" medal count is located? It must surely be on the IIHF website, or some hockey website, well im sure somewhere because its supposedly official and everyone has agreeded upon it right.

So again, if the definition police want to use it in their offfical rankings or not, I surely will. And if Russia wins for example, It will be considered a best on best win for them. Whether you agree or not, I guess it can be argued on forums like this for years to come, but honestly, this is the only place where the definition will actually matter. The players who take home the trophy will feel a lot different then you

 

[zeke]

It's best on best just like the All Star game is.

And we all now just how inspired everyone is to watch the all star game. And how revered the winners of that game are.

So you agree it's best on best.

And now we get to see just how inspired everyone is to watch, and how revered the winners of the tourney are.

 

[JackSlater]

Sorry, just because you have a particular definition that you use to classify which tournaments fall into what category, doesn't mean everyone else does. When debating people from Russia, they like to use Challenger cup and rendevouz as best on bests. Many Europeans say Canada cups weren't because nhl refs, biases, blah blah blah. Some people like to use world championships in lock out years because every country had access to best players.

So again, can you point to where the "official best on best" medal count is located? It must surely be on the IIHF website, or some hockey website, well im sure somewhere because its supposedly official and everyone has agreeded upon it right.

So again, if the definition police want to use it in their offfical rankings or not, I surely will. And if Russia wins for example, It will be considered a best on best win for them. Whether you agree or not, I guess it can be argued on forums like this for years to come, but honestly, this is the only place where the definition will actually matter. The players who take home the trophy will feel a lot different then you

You are free to be wrong, just like those theoretical players are. This tournament is basically just as much a best on best as the Challenger Cup and Rendezvous 87, I have agreed multiple times.

The question remains: Can team USA select the best American players? Can team Canada select the best Canadian players? Can team North America select the best North American players? Can team Europe select the best European players?

I doubt that you will answer, because the answer reveals why calling this a best on best tournament is inaccurate. The term is not new, and it had a meaning that people generally understood. That some people now struggle to understand what it means (best from one country vs best from another) doesn't change the term. People often misunderstand what some terms mean, but the meaning doesn't change just because some are wrong.

So you agree it's best on best.

And now we get to see just how inspired everyone is to watch, and how revered the winners of the tourney are.

Since you are implying that the all star game is a best on best, then at least your logic is consistent.

 

[hitmen19]

So you agree it's best on best.

And now we get to see just how inspired everyone is to watch, and how revered the winners of the tourney are.

how revered are the 91 Canada cup team, or the 04 world cup team. Teams usually get revered for moments that result in magic to a country. If something great happens along the way, it will be remembered. If a country from Europe wins, guarantee they will remember it. If Canada wins, unless the final is a heavy weight battle against the USA or Russia that comes down to OT games or great drama in all 3 games, it probably won't mean much as Canada has won a lot of tournaments lately and won't be able to compete with Salt lake and Vancouver

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Can it ever be a best on best? Canada can put up a 2nd team that would be better than some other countries....like they could have Team Canada and Team Canada eh

GET IT???

 

[xxxx]

It's best on best just like the All Star game is.

And we all now just how inspired everyone is to watch the all star game. And how revered the winners of that game are.

LMAO. What about talking how do the players care about those two events in comparison? That would hurt the argument right?

I think, if you watched the NHL AS game, and then the US-Canada friendly exhibition pre-touranment game, you could tell what game players actually care about. You could tell in 5 seconds. If you think winning a game that players don't care about and winnig a game players care about, is the same, and it means the same, you are being really funny.

 

[hitmen19]

You are free to be wrong, just like those theoretical players are. This tournament is basically just as much a best on best as the Challenger Cup and Rendezvous 87, I have agreed multiple times.

The question remains: Can team USA select the best American players? Can team Canada select the best Canadian players? Can team North America select the best North American players? Can team Europe select the best European players?

I doubt that you will answer, because the answer reveals why calling this a best on best tournament is inaccurate. The term is not new, and it had a meaning that people generally understood. That some people now struggle to understand what it means (best from one country vs best from another) doesn't change the term. People often misunderstand what some terms mean, but the meaning doesn't change just because some are wrong.



Since you are implying that the all star game is a best on best, then at least your logic is consistent.

Again, just because you define something a particular way, doesn't mean everyone else has to also. If the definition is so universally relied upon, Can you point me to the source where such official records are kept? I mean my high school has an official website for its school records. Im sure there is a place somewhere in the hockey world where there is an official tally kept by hockeys governing body or something.

And second of all, I love how you are trying to make excuses for Canada and the Usa not having their best players. But the fact is, both countries signed off on the premise. The NA would never have been allowed to form or participate had the governing bodies of both countries given its go ahead. They acknowledged they will compete not having the right to select those players. Guess what, your trying to say if an European team wins, it will not be best on best because Canada and the USA didn't have access to its best players. So built in excuses. But if Canada or the USA wins, they won despite not having access to its best players but it still won't count. huh????

 

[JackSlater]

Again, just because you define something a particular way, doesn't mean everyone else has to also. If the definition is so universally relied upon, Can you point me to the source where such official records are kept? I mean my high school has an official website for its school records. Im sure there is a place somewhere in the hockey world where there is an official tally kept by hockeys governing body or something.

No question that the official dictionary that you seem to be looking for is non-existant. The term did have a meaning though, and it is not what is being bandied about here. That the people who claim that this is a best on best cannot provide a definition that doesn't also describe the all star game or the NHL illustrates that there is a clear different between best on best and just "most of the best players", which is what most here are using. As I said though, you are free to be wrong all you want.

And second of all, I love how you are trying to make excuses for Canada and the Usa not having their best players. But the fact is, both countries signed off on the premise. The NA would never have been allowed to form or participate had the governing bodies of both countries given its go ahead. They acknowledged they will compete not having the right to select those players. Guess what, your trying to say if an European team wins, it will not be best on best because Canada and the USA didn't have access to its best players. So built in excuses. But if Canada or the USA wins, they won despite not having access to its best players but it still won't count. huh????

As I predicted, you didn't answer the question. Hockey Canada and USA Hockey agreed to the terms sadly, I agree. Does that mean that team Canada and team USA have access to all of their best players? Since you won't answer, I will for you: no. Hockey Canada and all of the federations agree to participate in the IIHF World Championships and that event is also not best on best.

I don't need your assumptions on what I mean when I have clearly made my statements, especially when you are wrong. I have already posted this before. If Canada wins, which is by far the most likely outcome, it remains not a best on best tournament. If USA wins, it remains not a best on best tournament. If you think that the outcome of a tournament impacts in any way what its nature is, then perhaps I can understand why you cannot comprehend what best on best means. Since Canada is certainly the favourite (probably around 50% chance of winning in my estimation, as I've said before) I find it quite annoying that this very good chance at Canada winning a best on best tournament is ruined by the structure of the tournament.

 

[TLeafsFan]

Half the people that voted in this poll think it isn't a best on best tournament?

You people are hilarious.

Its the closest thing you'll ever see to a true best on best tournament in all of hockey.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Yes who gives a **** about Slovakia or Switzerland. They have no chance anyways

Has nothing to do with who has a chance. Who gives a **** about the collection teams with no nationality in "world cup" ? More people would have had someone to cheer for. One of these joke teams win and then what? World cup my ass. I love watching these all star lineups play but as far as legitimacy goes this is a show tournament, nothing else. With Slovakia and Switzerland, anf groups formed by ranking instead by marketing potential...then this would be legitimate like Olympics.

 

[hitmen19]

No question that the official dictionary that you seem to be looking for is non-existant. The term did have a meaning though, and it is not what is being bandied about here. That the people who claim that this is a best on best cannot provide a definition that doesn't also describe the all star game or the NHL illustrates that there is a clear different between best on best and just "most of the best players", which is what most here are using. As I said though, you are free to be wrong all you want.



As I predicted, you didn't answer the question. Hockey Canada and USA Hockey agreed to the terms sadly, I agree. Does that mean that team Canada and team USA have access to all of their best players? Since you won't answer, I will for you: no. Hockey Canada and all of the federations agree to participate in the IIHF World Championships and that event is also not best on best.

I don't need your assumptions on what I mean when I have clearly made my statements, especially when you are wrong. I have already posted this before. If Canada wins, which is by far the most likely outcome, it remains not a best on best tournament. If USA wins, it remains not a best on best tournament. If you think that the outcome of a tournament impacts in any way what its nature is, then perhaps I can understand why you cannot comprehend what best on best means. Since Canada is certainly the favourite (probably around 50% chance of winning in my estimation, as I've said before) I find it quite annoying that this very good chance at Canada winning a best on best tournament is ruined by the structure of the tournament.

Exactly my point. you have "your" list of what you consider best on bests. I guarantee it is not the same list as Russians, other Europeans on here. They want to add other tourneys to the list that they have an opinion on. So just because you seem to think their is consensus on what tournaments have qualified, there are many that will argue the opposite. A lot of Europeans on here don't want to give credit for Canada Cups. So just because you say it is a best on best, others will argue that it wasn't because it had Canadian refs which negates the accomplishment. So Lets put this to a test. Name all the best on best according to your calculation, and lets see how many Europeans will agree with that list. Of course all Canadians probably will because Canada won almost all of them.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Half the people that voted in this poll think it isn't a best on best tournament?

You people are hilarious.

Its the closest thing you'll ever see to a true best on best tournament in all of hockey.

There's no pleasing this all or nothing crowd. They have their own definition, they insist that their's is the only acceptable one (because they say so), and even if you were to show them that something is 99.999999999% the same as what they consider to be perfect they still say nope, you've crossed the line, if it's not 100% it may as well be baboons on skates. Debating these people is kind of fun for a time, I cut them off when all their posts become consistently personal and insulting though, some people just don't know how to behave in a civil fashion.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Exactly my point. you have "your" list of what you consider best on bests. I guarantee it is not the same list as Russians, other Europeans on here. They want to add other tourneys to the list that they have an opinion on. So just because you seem to think their is consensus on what tournaments have qualified, there are many that will argue the opposite. A lot of Europeans on here don't want to give credit for Canada Cups. So just because you say it is a best on best, others will argue that it wasn't because it had Canadian refs which negates the accomplishment. So Lets put this to a test. Name all the best on best according to your calculation, and lets see how many Europeans will agree with that list. Of course all Canadians probably will because Canada won almost all of them.

This is a good point/example. I'm quite sure that NHL refs are the best in the business and impartial etc. but I know for a fact many Europeans feel differently. Again, I'm quite sure I'm right but I also understand why they feel the way they do and I respect their opinion.

 

[hitmen19]

There's no pleasing this all or nothing crowd. They have their own definition, they insist that their's is the only acceptable one (because they say so), and even if you were to show them that something is 99.999999999% the same as what they consider to be perfect they still say nope, you've crossed the line, if it's not 100% it may as well be baboons on skates. Debating these people is kind of fun for a time, I cut them off when all their posts become consistently personal and insulting though, some people just don't know how to behave in a civil fashion.

Yes exactly. They all seem to think there is a universal list that they can all agree upon that is best on best. Watch if somebody ever lists one, then you will see disagreements amongst themselves come out.

 

[TLeafsFan]

There's no pleasing this all or nothing crowd. They have their own definition, they insist that their's is the only acceptable one (because they say so), and even if you were to show them that something is 99.999999999% the same as what they consider to be perfect they still say nope, you've crossed the line, if it's not 100% it may as well be baboons on skates. Debating these people is kind of fun for a time, I cut them off when all their posts become consistently personal and insulting though, some people just don't know how to behave in a civil fashion.

All good, I've said my bit, I've watched most of the prelims, if some of this no contingent boycotts, their loss.

They'll be missing out of some of the BEST hockey they'll ever see in the modern era.

I hated the fact that "SAP" shows up on the game jerseys. That was my only pet peeve. I'm over it.

 

[JackSlater]

Half the people that voted in this poll think it isn't a best on best tournament?

You people are hilarious.

Its the closest thing you'll ever see to a true best on best tournament in all of hockey.

I agree that it's pretty close to a best on best.

Exactly my point. you have "your" list of what you consider best on bests. I guarantee it is not the same list as Russians, other Europeans on here. They want to add other tourneys to the list that they have an opinion on. So just because you seem to think their is consensus on what tournaments have qualified, there are many that will argue the opposite. A lot of Europeans on here don't want to give credit for Canada Cups. So just because you say it is a best on best, others will argue that it wasn't because it had Canadian refs which negates the accomplishment. So Lets put this to a test. Name all the best on best according to your calculation, and lets see how many Europeans will agree with that list. Of course all Canadians probably will because Canada won almost all of them.

I don't doubt that there are many who are wrong. I've discussed the past editions with posters, many from Europe, over the years so I'm decently well versed in their issues with those tournaments. In fact, in some cases I agree with their issues. The best on best tournaments were the previous Canada/World Cups and the 1998 and onward Olympics. Room for interpretation with the 1976 and 1991 Canada Cups and the 2005 WC due to some unique issues. The very factual problem of half of the teams in this tournament not being able to select their best in a supposedly best on best tournament is an obstacle that can't be surmounted though. Just because some people use a term in the wrong manner doesn't make their interpretation valid. If I called a November game between Columbus and Edmonton a best on best I would hope that most people would be able to realize how stupid that would be, even though it happened to be my belief.

Once again you're free to be wrong all you want. I can't change your thoughts and don't expect to. It remains obvious that a tournament in which half of the teams cannot select all of their best (healthy) players is not a best on best though.

There's no pleasing this all or nothing crowd. They have their own definition, they insist that their's is the only acceptable one (because they say so), and even if you were to show them that something is 99.999999999% the same as what they consider to be perfect they still say nope, you've crossed the line, if it's not 100% it may as well be baboons on skates. Debating these people is kind of fun for a time, I cut them off when all their posts become consistently personal and insulting though, some people just don't know how to behave in a civil fashion.

You've not been personally insulted that I've seen. Your poorly reasoned and factually wrong posts were rightly criticized though, despite the passive aggressive pouting that has followed. That you are unable to defend them makes it all the more clear.

 

[Elvs]

Half the people that voted in this poll think it isn't a best on best tournament?

You people are hilarious.

Its the closest thing you'll ever see to a true best on best tournament in all of hockey.

I voted no. Because I think the All Star Game is the true best on best. Only two teams, and all the best players are there.

 

[Xokkeu]

They're not the only source. Everywhere I've heard this tournament discussed, it's referred to as best on best with the exception of some nits on this board. I agree that by some definitions it's technically it's not best on best but the de facto result is that it's so close, the difference is only an issue to those who are really looking hard for issues. It seems to me that it's the same people looking for any excuse to dump on this tournament who make a big deal of people referring to it as best on best (who cares), the name of the tournament (who cares), is it international or not (who cares), how the NHL is marketing it (who cares) and so on and so on and so on and on and on. The definition police are working overtime, the rest of us are just enjoying the hockey.

Really because a good number of media outlets seem to call it something less than the Stanley cup and Olympics but a fun preseason tournament.

 

[TLeafsFan]

I voted no. Because I think the All Star Game is the true best on best. Only two teams, and all the best players are there.

That is a game. This is a tournament.

Can you have a tournament with just two teams?

No. But you can have a series, like in 1972. That was a best on best series.

All Star is a best on best game.

The World Cup is a best on best TOURNAMENT.

 

[Xokkeu]

That is a game. This is a tournament.

Can you have a tournament with just two teams?

No. But you can have a series, like in 1972. That was a best on best series.

All Star is a best on best game.

The World Cup is a best on best TOURNAMENT.

Didn't they revamp it to like four teams now?

 

[Elvs]

That is a game. This is a tournament.

Can you have a tournament with just two teams?

No. But you can have a series, like in 1972. That was a best on best series.

All Star is a best on best game.

The World Cup is a best on best TOURNAMENT.

I was being sarcastic.

Was Canada eligible to select any Canadian player they wanted for this tournament? Was the U.S.? If the answer is no, then I don't know how this can be a best-on-best tournament. In Vancouver (2010 Olympics), Canada and USA met in the final and both nations had all the players they wanted to have. That made it best-on-best.

If you create teams that takes players from other teams, it's no longer a best-on-best. Otherwise we could just call the NHL best-on-best, all the best players are there. They are just spread out over 30 teams.

 

[TLeafsFan]

Didn't they revamp it to like four teams now?

Revamp what?

2 teams in any All Star Game

2 teams in the Summit Series

8 teams in the WCH

I suppose you could have 4 teams in a WCH tournament, but it wouldn't make for much of a tournament.

6 teams are countries with enough depth in their country to form a competitive team for the tournament from what they feel gives them the best chance to win.

One team with the best of the rest European players, who's countries of origin lack the depth to be competitive team, so they grouped them all together.

One team made up of the BEST young future stars in North America.

Sorry I just don't get what you mean by revamped to four teams. :shrug: