1972 Summit Series: shame or glory?

[Do Make Say Think]

Canada had to injure the opposing team's best player to even have a chance of winning.

Shame or glory?

I say shame.

Click to read more...

 

[King Woodballs]

Glory!!!!
What it takes to win

 

[jkrx]

Definitly shame. There is a big difference between using dirty tricks and cheating a bit but I wll never condone intentionally injure a player in that manner.

 

[Zine]

It's interesting how politics shape people's opinions of sporting events.
Had that same series happened against Sweden, the Canadian players would've been shamed for life because:
1. of the means by which they achieved victory; and 2. Canada ceased being the sole hockey super-power.
However, seeing as it was against the 'evil communists', the players returned as heroes.

 

[um]

shame, how can it not be.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Shame. Hockey was robbed with Kharlamov getting injured.

But the fact is Canada won those last games against a better team than them IN Russia. Which stands for something. After they cheated to level the playing field the last games weren't in Canada they were in (VERY) hostile territory.

 

[um]

Shame. Hockey was robbed with Kharlamov getting injured.

But the fact is Canada won those last games against a better team than them IN Russia. Which stands for something. After they cheated to level the playing field the last games weren't in Canada they were in (VERY) hostile territory.

 

[tombombadil]

people call it being competitive. I find myself quite competitive, and I would say that, as a competitor, I would have wanted to reschedule the games until a time when Kharlamov was ready to play properly again. I would not want to beat that team without him - not even if he broke his ankle by accident.

People can go back and forth on various intangibles, and many have good points - Orr wasn't there, Hull wasn't there, Firsov wasn't there. All of the arguments are emotion-laden.

The dry, barebones facts are thus:

-The best possible team Russia could field in 1972 won 3-1-1 against the best possible team Canada could field in 1972.

The best team Canada could field in 1972 won 3-0 against the next best team Russia could field in 1972.

Bobby Clarke forever removed the opportunity for Canada to come back and win an 8 game series against Russia in 1972.

Ankles heal. The cowardly violence put on Kharlamov's ankle is not the big shame here. Ending your country's chances to recover from a series deficit is the big shame here. I would never forgive him for that, if i were on Team Canada -the fact that he never believed we could do it.

The crowning turd in the waterpipe is for misguided patriots to refer to that as 'wanting it more'. No, you lost at hockey, and you won at chickening out.

 

[Ogopogo*]

What Clarke did is a criminal act in a sporting sense - that play was an embarrassment. Of course, the treatment the Canadian players received in Russia off the ice was bush league as well.

Both sides used unethical tactics to get an edge - certainly nothing to be proud of. I guess it really was a kind of war.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i remember in the '92 playoffs adam graves broke mario's wrist with a slash right where the padding on the glove ends. absolutely did not look like an accident to me. always bugged me a little that he has gone down in history as nothing but a warrior.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

-The best possible team Russia could field in 1972 won 3-1-1 against the best possible team Canada could field in 1972.

The best team Canada could field in 1972 won 3-0 against the next best team Russia could field in 1972.

So the USSR without Kharlamov is "the next best team" but Canada without Orr is "the best team possible"?

 

[tombombadil]

that they could field, yes.

Canada, with Orr, is officially 0-0 against Russia with everyone including Firsov and coach. That's all hypothetics, and suited to fantasy talk. And more credit to you for it. Two teams showed up to play, and that series ended after 5 games.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I think people either forget or weren't around to remember just how real the Cold War was, especially in the late 60s and early 70s. These nations and players hated each other and it was literally war on ice. Crap happened that both sides can look back at and not condone, but those Cold War games were unbelievable hockey, and I don't think either side should feel ashamed, because it was ultimately a lot more civil than what it could have become.

I don't think anyone really condones what Clarke did, but "shame" is going way too far, and completely ignoring the political and social context of the time.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think people either forget or weren't around to remember just how real the Cold War was, especially in the late 60s and early 70s. These nations and players hated each other and it was literally war on ice. Crap happened that both sides can look back at and not condone, but those Cold War games were unbelievable hockey, and I don't think either side should feel ashamed, because it was ultimately a lot more civil than what it could have become.

I don't think anyone really condones what Clarke did, but "shame" is going way too far, and completely ignoring the political and social context of the time.

i think people are saying that what clarke did was disgraceful in the context of being a competitive athlete and wanting to be the best by beating the best. which i would tend to agree with. but to view this through the lense of the cold wars, what he did is disgraceful in the context of being a member of civil society. there is a war on "terror," which does not make the thousands of hate crimes perpetrated on muslim-americans any less shameful.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

But the entire point is that was not just a hockey game. Ugly things happen when crosstown rivals face off, and we are talking about opposing representatives from countries close to all-out war playing against each other in a contact sport where they carry lethal weapons in their hands and on their feet.

The Cold War was like immediate post 9-11 only longer sustained, the enemy was a specific nation and ideology, and the possible outcome was a nucleur winter. I'm just saying we're lucky dirty plays in a hockey game are what we are contemplating bringing shame... and not billions of innocent lives lost in World War III. Frankly, I am surprised it was as civilized as it was.

Ultimately, great hockey was played, and both sides have more to be proud about than feel ashamed about.

 

[Mouse21*]

extreme shame.

 

[Theokritos]

Had that same series happened against Sweden, the Canadian players would've been shamed for life... However, seeing as it was against the 'evil communists', the players returned as heroes.

I'm not so sure. The exhibition games between Team Canada and Sweden in September 1972 were actually dirtier than the Summit Series and the Canadian players considered the Swedes as more 'evil' than the Russians. I don't think it was Canada vs Communism as much as Canada vs Europe or Canada vs the World.

I think people either forget or weren't around to remember just how real the Cold War was, especially in the late 60s and early 70s. These nations and players hated each other and it was literally war on ice. Crap happened that both sides can look back at and not condone, but those Cold War games were unbelievable hockey, and I don't think either side should feel ashamed, because it was ultimately a lot more civil than what it could have become.

The thread is about whether the Canadian victory is tainted or not and you turn it into a "both sides" thing. Now I'm not saying the Soviets were 100% clean because they surely weren't. The worst thing that happened on their side was obviously Mikhailov's kick against Gary Bergman. Funny thing is that not even the most biased Soviet homers are trying to justify that move by saying "hey, it was Cold War on Ice". No one is defending what Mikhailov did and no one is denying that it was shameful. Yet in the case of Clarke, there is always someone from North America coming up with the Cold War argument.
BTW I wonder whether the same "hey, it was Cold War on Ice" standard would be applied if the Soviets had broken the ankle of Phil Esposito or Bobby Clarke. I suspect that the outcry in Canada would have been heard around the world.

But the entire point is that was not just a hockey game. Ugly things happen when crosstown rivals face off, and we are talking about opposing representatives from countries close to all-out war playing against each other in a contact sport where they carry lethal weapons in their hands and on their feet.

The Cold War was like immediate post 9-11 only longer sustained, the enemy was a specific nation and ideology, and the possible outcome was a nucleur winter.

Cold War on Ice? Maybe for the Canadians. But in the eyes of the Soviets Canada wasn't the great enemy in the Cold War, Canada was an afterthought. And why did the games against Sweden - a free and democratic country - degenerated into a worse kind of 'War on Ice' than the Summit Series? Because the Canadian players looked into the membership list of the NATO and discovered that Sweden wasn't on it? I don't think so.
But no matter what the explanation is: Explanation ≠ justification. And if there is no justification then there is cause for shame.

I'm just saying we're lucky dirty plays in a hockey game are what we are contemplating bringing shame... and not billions of innocent lives lost in World War III.

If you play hockey you are measured against the rules of the game, not matter what the political circumstances are. Breaking an opponents' ankle is against the rule of the games and therefore it is condemned, period.

 

[King Woodballs]

people call it being competitive. I find myself quite competitive, and I would say that, as a competitor, I would have wanted to reschedule the games until a time when Kharlamov was ready to play properly again. I would not want to beat that team without him - not even if he broke his ankle by accident.

People can go back and forth on various intangibles, and many have good points - Orr wasn't there, Hull wasn't there, Firsov wasn't there. All of the arguments are emotion-laden.

The dry, barebones facts are thus:

-The best possible team Russia could field in 1972 won 3-1-1 against the best possible team Canada could field in 1972.

The best team Canada could field in 1972 won 3-0 against the next best team Russia could field in 1972.

Bobby Clarke forever removed the opportunity for Canada to come back and win an 8 game series against Russia in 1972.

Ankles heal. The cowardly violence put on Kharlamov's ankle is not the big shame here. Ending your country's chances to recover from a series deficit is the big shame here. I would never forgive him for that, if i were on Team Canada -the fact that he never believed we could do it.

The crowning turd in the waterpipe is for misguided patriots to refer to that as 'wanting it more'. No, you lost at hockey, and you won at chickening out.

That wasnt the best team Canada could have put together.

Hull couldnt play because of that b.s. WHA ruling and Orr was hurt.

If if both of them could play... This series wouldnt have been close

Orr was one of if not best player in the league.

 

[BraveCanadian]

My opinion is that intentionally injuring a player is unsportsmanlike and that having done so taints the victory.

I know the excuses regarding the political environment and I know the series was chippy but I still don't condone it.

Imagine how opinions would be reversed if Orr had been able to play and a Russian submarined his knees to take him out. We would be screaming about it to this day.

 

[cam042686]

Glory!!!!
What it takes to win

So if the Soviets had responded by saying taking out Phil Esposito you would have firmly agreed with that tactic?

Fair is fair.

Craig Wallace

 

[tikkanen5rings*]

That wasnt the best team Canada could have put together.

Hull couldnt play because of that b.s. WHA ruling and Orr was hurt.

If if both of them could play... This series wouldnt have been close

Orr was one of if not best player in the league.

Hockey is a team sport. You can't simply say that Soviets wouldn't have had a change by adding two players. No matter how good they were.

 

[Sentinel]

the thousands of hate crimes perpetrated on muslim-americans any less shameful.

Uhm... what?

 

[Macman]

Shame on both sides. The Clarke slash and the Mikhailov kick. Both were intended to injure but we only ever seem to talk about one.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm not so sure. The exhibition games between Team Canada and Sweden in September 1972 were actually dirtier than the Summit Series and the Canadian players considered the Swedes as more 'evil' than the Russians. I don't think it was Canada vs Communism as much as Canada vs Europe or Canada vs the World.



The thread is about whether the Canadian victory is tainted or not and you turn it into a "both sides" thing. Now I'm not saying the Soviets were 100% clean because they surely weren't. The worst thing that happened on their side was obviously Mikhailov's kick against Gary Bergman. Funny thing is that not even the most biased Soviet homers are trying to justify that move by saying "hey, it was Cold War on Ice". No one is defending what Mikhailov did and no one is denying that it was shameful. Yet in the case of Clarke, there is always someone from North America coming up with the Cold War argument.
BTW I wonder whether the same "hey, it was Cold War on Ice" standard would be applied if the Soviets had broken the ankle of Phil Esposito or Bobby Clarke. I suspect that the outcry in Canada would have been heard around the world.



Cold War on Ice? Maybe for the Canadians. But in the eyes of the Soviets Canada wasn't the great enemy in the Cold War, Canada was an afterthought. And why did the games against Sweden - a free and democratic country - degenerated into a worse kind of 'War on Ice' than the Summit Series? Because the Canadian players looked into the membership list of the NATO and discovered that Sweden wasn't on it? I don't think so. But no matter what the explanation is: Explanation ≠ justification. And if there is no justification then there is cause for shame.



If you play hockey you are measured against the rules of the game, not matter what the political circumstances are. Breaking an opponents' ankle is against the rule of the games and therefore it is condemned, period.

Good point.

More East vs.West in a world context than Cold War, which was U.S. vs. Soviet Union.

Easy to see from outside of the 2 countries involved that Canada was the "good" country and the USSR "bad". Just as easy to see the "good" hockey team was the Soviets, "bad" team Canada. By this I mean to anyone outside of Canada it was clear that the Canadians played a much dirtier game. Canadians called it physical, everyone else called it dirty. That is why the games with Sweden were so vicious. When things got "physical" the Canadian players had a line in mind about how far you could go. The swedes had their line crossed immediately by the Canadians, so they responded without knowing how far was too far. The result was some incredibly ugly confrontations. Cashman, known for carry his stick high, almost lost his tongue.

Bottom line was the bottom line. The Canadians won the series, saved face, came back to win like warriors. Heroic. But the Soviets turned the hockey world upside down with their performance. Everyone was expecting the series to be 8-0 unless Canada got bored and allowed a win for the Soviets. In retrospect, the Canadians were fortunate to win at all.

 

[hockeypuck2012]

Both shame & glory.