Great Debates, Debate Thread

[Fanpuck33_]

I figured we should let the original thread just be people's opinions, and not mess it up with actual debates about people's opinions.

First, who is Alan Eagleson?

Second, a lot of questions use the word "notorious," which has a negative connotation. Do you just mean, "best known" or "most famous"?

Third, I think you all wanted the Gelinas shot to be a goal because you were rooting hard core for the Canadian team to win. I admit, I was rooting for Tampa, but when it comes to penalties and such, I try to be as objective as possible. I admit, it looked like a goal at first, but other angles made it look like it wasn't a goal. On TV, they even used every angle available to create a 3-D computer generated recreation of the path the puck took, which showed that the puck barely even made it to the goaline.

Last, the question about the greatest hockey moment isn't even fiad, because the biggest moment isn't even a choice. The US' gold medal in 1980 came against Finland, which wasn't a gigantic moment. The big moment was the US win over the USSR in the semi-finals of the 1980 Olympics. It was a bunch of no-name Americans agianst the Russian men. The 72 Canadian win can't compare, because there were/are a lot more good hockey players in the Canada than there were/are in the US. Also, the US win over the USSR had impact that went beyond the game of hockey.

EDIT : I Added an icon

[Edited on 2005-1-6 by sakiqc]

[Zowpeb]

1) Alan Eagleson is the former NHLPA boss who screwed a lot of the old players out of their pension money and spent time in jail as a result...one of the most hated men in the game really...

I picked Cherry because he is notorious for his often scandalous comments.

2) Notorious is defined as: having an exceedingly bad reputation; Known widely and usually unfavorably; generally known and talked of;

3) I don't really care about 3D recreations...to me it looked like a goal and I don't think there was any way to rule otherwise at the time. I don't really care one way or the other though.

4) I think the Canada vs USSR was a bigger moment because it was a series of games. It was also the first time anyone had seen the Russians play. Combine that with the fact that Canada was expected to dominate and didn't and I think you have the one of the most compelling games in the history of any sport. I think most Canadians, who were alive at the time, could tell you where they were when Henderson scored...I'm willing to bet most Americans are only aware that they won the game and little else. In no way do I want to take away from the US accomplishment because it was a great, and unexpected, win. I just think the Canada vs. USSR series as a whole created a more compelling game that was more widely appreciated.

[Fanpuck33_]

I know what notorious means, which is why I wanted to know why they chose that word, since in some of the questions didn't seem like they were intended to ask about bad things. Such as, how is hair notorious?

The first time people saw the Soviets? I'm pretty sure the Soviets won gold in hockey in 1964 and 1968, and were already established as the team to beat in international hockey. I also know that both my parents, one a hockey fan and one not, remember watching the US win over the Soviets in 1980. Millions of Americans who didn't know the difference between a "hockey goal and a lacrosse stick", as Al Michaels said. (I think) I think the US win over the USSR is a bigger moment because the US was a lot bigger underdog than Canada ever could be, and it had impact on much more than the world of hockey.

[Zowpeb]

In the definitions I posted you'll notice notorious can also mean "generally known and talked of".

For example you could say: Mike Ricci has notoriously bad hair. In other words, everyone knows Mike Ricci has bad hair. Another example would be: Don Cherry is notorious for being out-spoken.

I can see why someone would think the US 1980 Olympic victory is a bigger deal...I just disagree.

The previous olympics were played with less then stellar competition from almost all countries. While people had seen the Soviet team they hadn't seen them play any competition. The Canadian team, with it's NHLers, was expected to destory the Soviet team. The fact that the Soviets were much better then anticipated was a real eye opener for the hockey world.

The issues with the games played in Russia, the NHLers having no time to prepare or get in shape, the politics of the era, and the fact that it was an 8 game series made it an incredibly intoxicating game. People literally stopped working and went out in the streets when Canada won...people were listening on radios at work, almost EVERYONE was watching. There is not a chance that the US had the same level of drama leading up to, or even during, their game. Yes, the Miracle on Ice was a great game and victory...but it was just that, a one game shocker. Canada had to play 8 games, 4 in Russia, have Eagleson almost get arrested mid-game by Russian police, etc...

I don't know if you've ever seen the documentary series on the 1972 Summit series but it's really good. I know they haven't gone and a crappy Hollywood movie out of it, but the documetary series will show you the level of enthusiasm that series had. They even show the Summit Series documentary on a loop at the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Christ, there are people that think Paul Henderson should be in the Hall of Fame for his goal...in an otherwise average career. Hearing the play by play of Henderson scoring that goal is etched in the minds of almost every Canadian...even the ones that weren't alive when it happened, like me...

[Edited on 2005/1/2 by Zowpeb]

[Fanpuck33_]

I don't think Miracle was a crappy movie, I thought it was quite good. They could have done a better job of identifying all the players, but I thought it was quite good. Kurt Russel made an excellent Herb Brooks, and the hockey looked excellent for a movie.

[sakiqc]

OOps, was sure "notorious" was a positive word. Wouldn'T have name Gretzky loll

Zow: I wrote Quebec for best hockey nation. The question was "nation", not "country". It is established that Quebec is a nation. Even, when you enter the limit of the Quebec City, there's a sign welcoming people to the National Capital..

I named Patrick Roy as the player who most changed the game because he "profesionalize" a lot the game, introducing high technic. Making goalie a real variable in the issue of the game

About referee, we should not notice them. THey aren'T part of the show.

Best international team? Maybe this year WJC ? They are ruling anyone so far. CAn't wait for the next 2 games. We'll see in 10 years all the big names who were part of the team.

[Zowpeb]

I didn't like Miracle...I thought it was pretty boring actually. It doesn't take away from the actual game, which was much better...but as movies go I can think of a number of better sports movies.

Sakiqc, I realise that Quebec is a "nation" in the cultural sense of the definition...however, it seems clear to me that the intent of the question was to find out which country has the best hockey team in the world. If the question was "who is the best soccer nation in the world", I don't think you'd see the Vichy french or the Catalonians of Spain using that to say they're the best. These "national" regions of countries do not have teams and therefore can't even make the comparison that they are the best as a result. The fact that Quebec city has that sign is a disgrace...it implies that Quebec city is the capital of a nation-state, and obviously Quebec is NOT a state. It's these little things that are a slap in the face to the confederation of Canada. But I don't want to get into a big argument on this...we'll save it for YIM...lol

Putting Roy was interesting...bringing in the butterfly technique for goalies. But, goalies have always been a real variable in games...that was nothing new. He did help re-invent the way goalies play and is a pioneer of the larger equipement...lol.

I agree on the refs.

Best international team...this Canadian WJ team is dominating(though it's not over yet...the Russians are very good too). In the viewpoint of dominating a tournament then I suppose they'd rank up there...but in terms of being "the best" team I'd think you'd need to pick a team not limited by age. In terms of talent the '87 Canadian team was unreal.

[Fanpuck33_]

Boy, you guys REALLY wanted Calgary to win the Cup this year. Where's Habs77 to back me up? He agreed with me that it was no goal.

[Habsfan21]

One interesting thing to me is the reverence of the Mighty Ducks movies...which I thought were WAY too cheesy to do justice to the game. Miracle was strictly OK, a bit too jingoistic, and predictable (hehe, an alternate ending would be hillarious), but altogether, not bad. Now, Slap Shot....funny, action packed, realistic to the times, and I bet no one could predict the ending. Plus, the coolest man ever, Paul Newman.

-Even with the biased announcers, and my secret wish for Tampa to win, it WAS a goal. It was past the red line...that computer generation was sh*t. I didn't think it was near accurate.

-I don't think the Miracle on Ice is comperable to it's overall effect on hockey. I mean, the best Canadian pros went, and were put on their toes. The Russians brought physical fitness and planning to the forefront of the Canadian hockey mind. Keep in mind, we thoguht we kept losing mainly because they had their best and we didn't in the WC's. Those games PROVED the Russians to be near/at Canada's level, and changed the way the game was played.

Miracle on Ice? A fluke with a bunch of politics around it. THe best team in the world, sure, but they had to eat American food, play on American time, and play in an American arena. Canada '72 actually had the balls to GO to Moscow, eat their food, get their stuff searched, etc, for the last 4 games. which would not be repeated with the pros in the Canada Cup. Oh yeah, and the Soviets pulled the best goalie in the world, pretty much ever. That didn't help at all, eh?

-One thing I liked was that people were more open to who the "best player in history" was. Usually, people are just automaticaly "Gretzky", without considering alternatives.

[Fanpuck33_]

But if the Russians beat Canada's top pros, doesn't that make it even more amazing that a bunch of college kids beat them? The Russians had been dominating international hockey for 10 years when the played Canada in '72.

I still think Gelinas' shot was not a goal, but it still could never beat the non-call on Hull's goal to win the Cup. That play had definitive evidence that Hull was in the crease before the puck, which was illegal then.

[Zowpeb]

I don't know if you are aware of this Fanpuck but Canada used to send club teams to the Olympics and the various international tournaments. And not NHL club teams...so we're talking about essentially minor league teams.

So I think it's fair to say that until Canada started treating the Olympics and various international tourney's with a little more respect it's obvious the Russians would have dominated at that time.

That's why Canada was expected to blow the Russians out of the water at the 1972 Summit series...we were finally putting our best players on the ice together. Unfortunately, they were not in game shape to start, were caught off guard, etc...the fact that the Russians were as good as advertised(in Russia...lol) was a shock that put them on their heels. Then Canada headed to Russia and had to deal with a number of issues...calls kept coming all night, Eagleson was almost arrested mid-game, threats, etc.

The Summit series was really a defining moment for hockey that introduced the Russians as the real deal and pitted North American hockey vs. the Russian game...whereas the Miracle on Ice was a great acheivement but not much more then that.

[Fanpuck33_]

Of course I know that Canada sent amateurs to the Olympics, as did every nation until they changed the rules, since the Russians for years were sending "professional amateurs" each year.

The Olympics were so much more exciting and meaningful when amateurs played. Those guys really wanted to be there, and were doing it for the right reasons. Too many pro athletes could not care less about their countries, and only go if they feel like it.

[Leafs Suck]

The Americans never went over a played the Soviets in Moscow. They never stayed at Moscow hotels, or put up with any of the sneaky crap the Red Coats pulled. Canada did.

The US never came from behind like Canada. The fact Canada won 3 games in a row in Moscow under those circumstances, IMO, is the greatest sporting achievment in our countries history.

Americans will just never understand that. Sure they can say the same about us, but hey we're not vain enough to make a movie out of 1972.

[Edited on 2005/1/4 by Leafs Suck]

[simonus]

i think we're vain enough... we just dont have the audience, confidence, or capital

[Fanpuck33_]

How else are future generations going to learn about the greatest moment in American sports? The media surely isn't going to do it, as most Americans don't give a damn about hockey. I'm not going to say it's Oscar worthy or anything, but I thought it was a well made movie, even though it was more they focused to much on just a few characters.

And I think the Summut series, and subsequent Russian vs. NHL All-Stars games, make 1980 even more amazing, because it was a bunch of college kids, many of whom never even made it to the NHL. Then they go out and beat the greatest team in the world, a team that had dominated for almost 20 years.

And like I said, I also chose 1980 because it's effect far surpassed the world of hockey. In 1980, things were not looking very up for the states, and a lot of people were worrying about the future. This game, because it was over the Soviets, gave a lot of people new hope that we would come out alright. This is the only reason Miracle on Ice gets as much coverage as it does in the states. If it were football or baseball in the same situation, there would be a lot more publicity about it.

Miracle on Ice made Americans talk about hockey.

By the way, the main reason I didn't put the Summit series is because I know next to nothing about it, except that I had heard of it. I figure that the greatest moment in hockey should be something that transcends the game. Do I not know about it because I am American? Almost certainly. But even as an American, shouldn't I know something about it if it is the greatest moment in hockey?

[Edited on 1-4-05 by Fanpuck33]

[Habsfan21]

Transcends the game? The last 4 Summit Series games were shown in SCHOOLS. This was Canada's pride, Canada's vision of itself as something unique and powerful, on the line. Even the Russian players (Kharlamov, Tretiak, Shadrin, et al.) of the series became legends in Canada. Canada saw beyond politics, and realized the skill and tenacity of Russians.

The Miracle on Ice? "We beat those damn Commies! Woo Hoo!."

PS. They made a DVD series and a documentary movie about the series....the DVD has every game, and "Summit on Ice" is a VERY good documentary.

[Leafs Suck]

That Soviet team was nothing compared to the 72 team. I'd say the 72 USSR is arguably the greatest international team ever put together.

Put that team in their prime against the 1980 US olympic team and their would be no Miracle on Ice.

It's easy to fluke one game, it's hard to fluke a series. Canada beat the Soviets in a series. The US beat the Soviets in one game, and lets be honest it wasn't a dominating effort.

[Fanpuck33_]

Was Tretiak goalie in 1972? I think he was. If so, did the Canadians ever run him out of the game?

Like I keep saying, the Canadians threw pros at the Soviets. The Americans threw amateurs at them. If only American basketball would follow the formula Herb Brooks used, make a good team, not a collection of the best talent.

[Zowpeb]

Originally posted by Fanpuck33

Of course I know that Canada sent amateurs to the Olympics, as did every nation until they changed the rules, since the Russians for years were sending "professional amateurs" each year.

The Olympics were so much more exciting and meaningful when amateurs played.  Those guys really wanted to be there, and were doing it for the right reasons.  Too many pro athletes could not care less about their countries, and only go if they feel like it.

I don't think you understand when I said we used to send club teams...I'm not talking amatuer all star teams like you get with the world juniors.

I mean something like the OHL's Kitchener Rangers...that type of team, no added players, not a combination of players to form a pseudo-all star team of minor league guys. Just a club team...lol. That's why the Russians dominated international hockey...no one cared.

Then came the 1972 Summit series. You really should watch the documentary...I'm willing to bet you'd have a different view.

I'd say you don't know much about it solely because you only get to see American media...it's common place that anything that isn't American will NEVER(or very rarely) get shown by US media...which is amusing to Canadians btw, since we get to see stuff from pretty much all over. Seriously, just take a look at ESPN's coverage of Canadian based teams in any sport...it's virtually non-existant...because it's not considered to be relevant to their viewership. How many nationally televised games do the Raptors have in the US? How many NHL games are shown in the US from Canadian arenas? How many Jays or Expos games were shown in the US? The coverage on these teams is crap from ESPN(and others), never in rumours, etc. I understand why US media is like this and I'm not judging it...I'm just saying this to point out why you don't really know about the Summit Series.

In the end, how much could the US Miracle on Ice have really had an impact? It's not like the US hockey market has made any ground since then...it's still big in the same markets it was before 1980 and not much anywhere else.

[Habsfan21]

Originally posted by Fanpuck33

Was Tretiak goalie in 1972?  I think he was.  If so, did the Canadians ever run him out of the game?

Irrelevant. Team politics was the only reason that happened. Plus, there was pretty much nowhere else to go for a goalie in 1972.

There is strictly no comparison between the two events. There will always be upsets (Belarus v. Sweden, 2002 Salt Lake, was a bigger one at that). But having two teams of players that have never played each other, but are THE top players in the world, with completly different styles, and different lessons to teach each other (Fitness, stragegies, total team commitment v. Physical play, passion, the will to win no matter what the cost), will never happen again.

The embarassment of Game 1 in Montréal. The hard fought tie in Game 3. The Soviet comeback in Game 5, Clarke slashing Kharlamov in Game 6, Peter Mahovlich's end to end goal, Espo's sheer will, and of course, Henderson's score, are the zenith of hockey history.

Also, games that are about forgotten, but were just as important: The two game series against Sweden (Cashman got his tounge cut out by a high stick) which proved the worth of that hockey nation, and the afterward in Czechoslovakia.

[Fanpuck33_]

You think I don't know that the US media focuses on American athletics? I live here, I know how "often" the Habs are on TV.

I mean, come on, Miracle on Ice made Americans care about hockey. I think that alone makes it the biggest moment in hockey.

[Habsfan21]

So? So, what if a game makes Belorussians care about hockey? Or Chinese people? Or Romanians?

Just becasue it makes someone care, or is good to America, doesn't make it better than the greatest hockey series ever played.

[Edited on 2005/1/5 by Habsfan21]

[Zowpeb]

Yeah, it made Americans care so much about hockey it gets ratings of less then Arena football in the US...lol

It made some Americans care about hockey because they won...same as they'd care about Cricket if they won. A month later and I doubt anyone cared anymore...it's the nature of US media.

[Fanpuck33_]

Originally posted by Habsfan21

So?  So, what if a game makes Belorussians care about hockey?  Or Chinese people?  Or Romanians?  

Just becasue it makes someone care, or is good to America, doesn't make it better than the greatest hockey series ever played.

Damn, you people just can't take a joke.

Originally posted by Zowpeb

A month later and I doubt anyone cared anymore...it's the nature of US media.

Yeah, that's why they made a movie about it more than 20 years later.

By the way, I love the sig, habsfan21.

[Edited on 1-5-05 by Fanpuck33]

[Dalhabs]

Im not going to answer everything caus I cant... BUT the best dynasty of all time is Soviet 60s 70s 80s

I dont want the games to end in a shoot out... rather play overtime until a team scores.