1972 Summit Series: shame or glory?

Status
Not open for further replies.

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,825
773
Helsinki, Finland
What?...Kharlamov was injured and not his 'normal self' and part of the reason Soviet lost 1972 WC? Kharlamov made the all-star team.:laugh:
Soviets lost because they were in transition mode (the first non Firsov/Tarasov led team).

Then again, they came very close to losing the gold medal in 1969 and 1971. Had Czechoslovakia not lost games that they shouldn't have in 1969 and 1971, they would have won the tournament, and I'm not sure if USSR played much/any worse in the 1972 WC than before. Tarasov certainly gave the Swedes a big "Thank you" at the 1969 WC. But Tarasov & Chernyshev in the 1972 Summit series would have been interesting... and Firsov*

True about Kharlamov. The whole Kharlamov-Maltsev-Vikulov trio made the All-Star team in 1972.

* Firsov stealing the puck & scoring at the 1972 Winter Olympics --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWrAhSm9F1Q#t=4m2s
Looks like good ol' Firsov to me (yes, I know it's only one play)
 
Last edited:

Cruor

Registered User
May 12, 2012
800
96
Claiming that you actually won a series when you actually lost is never an option. You could claim that the results are essentially void due to pervasive cheating in some instances, but that doesn't give a team the win. I have no idea why you think Canada would have had that option in the first place, and no idea how the assumptions of the Canadian players and media would even factor in.

Are you familiar with the term moral victory? I think that's what the poster is alluding to, and I also think that's how the whole series is viewed internationally. When you give directives to take out a player you lose automatically, regardless if you are better or not.
 

Strangelove

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
2,074
1,180
When you give directives to take out a player you lose automatically, regardless if you are better or not.

How about when you give directives to constantly kick at the skates of opposition players?

How about when you give directives to constantly slash & spear behind the play?

Those Russkies were as dirty as it gets so I guess "they lose" eh? :naughty:
 

Strangelove

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
2,074
1,180
Soviets lost because they were in transition mode (the first non Firsov/Tarasov led team).

It's nice to see a Russian blame something other than "The Slash"! :thumbu:

It’s funny how some folks want to believe everything Clarkie had to say about “The Slash†EXCEPT FOR the part where he says it was retaliation for Kharlamov’s stickwork on Clarkie just prior to the play.

It’s funny how some folks want to believe everything John Ferguson had to say about “The Slash†EXCEPT FOR the part where he says Kharlamov had a pre-existing injury:

"I remember that Kharlamov's ankle was hurting pretty bad. I called Clarke over to the bench, looked over at Kharlamov and said, 'I think he needs a tap on the ankle’.†- JF

It’s funny how some folks want to believe “The Slash†was the turning point of the series when in fact it most certainly wasn’t.
 

Cruor

Registered User
May 12, 2012
800
96
How about when you give directives to constantly kick at the skates of opposition players?

How about when you give directives to constantly slash & spear behind the play?

Those Russkies were as dirty as it gets so I guess "they lose" eh? :naughty:

Is Canada seeking high ground here? I saw earlier how someone (Killion) complained about treatment in the USSR leg of games. Seriously?? If any country isn't allowed to complain about stuff like that it's Canada with all the gamesmanship teams had to endure while participating in tournaments in your country.

Now, I personally draw the line here: If you are out to injure someone you give up. Either you beat them on the field (or ice) fair and square or you don't bother - but you don't go around intentionally injuring opponents. Period.
Sports is sports, war is war. They are not the same.
 

Strangelove

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
2,074
1,180
Now, I personally draw the line here: If you are out to injure someone you give up. Either you beat them on the field (or ice) fair and square or you don't bother - but you don't go around intentionally injuring opponents. Period.

The Russkies were trying to injure Canadian players with every kick, slash, and spear.

Welcome to 1972.
 

Helistin

Dustin's equilibrium
Aug 12, 2006
4,222
3,027
Close to you
Hockey was tough back then. That's why every club employed an enforcer. Russia ignored this, so .....

Think you are confusing tough hockey with pure assault with an intent to injure. One has nothing to do with the other.
Makes me sad that some people actually think this kind of behavior is acceptable in or outside the ring. It's not.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,220
Hockey was tough back then. That's why every club employed an enforcer. Russia ignored this, so .....

... "back in the day", like 71-72 most clubs employed multi-dimensional enforcers, guys who could play a bit in addition to fighting, and indeed, every player, regardless of who they were, were in fact expected to answer the Bell when & if it ever rang. Obviousley though guys like Henderson & Ellis werent noted for their pugilistic skills, more inclined to hold & wrassle' than to ever start throwing haymakers or straight rights, avoided it altogether, along with the stickwork.

Remind me, who was the enforcer on the Canada squad? :help:

... Savard, Bergman, bunch of em' rather intimidating specimens. Didnt work though. The Russians werent worried, they played their game, Team Canada basically playing catch-up throughout the series with the exception of a couple of games. Its was really fascinating to watch live at the time, not knowing what the outcome would be, as the Canucks won on pure emotion, mad drives by one or two players as opposed to playing cohesively as a unit. Opportunists. Again, I chalk a lot of that up to Scouting & lack of preparation, Coaching & the selection of players. The Soviets as well were experiencing internal power struggles between the old & new guard. The past is a Strange Land Hobnobs, they do things differently back there. :)
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,220
Think you are confusing tough hockey with pure assault with an intent to injure. One has nothing to do with the other.
Makes me sad that some people actually think this kind of behavior is acceptable in or outside the ring. It's not.

... yes, this an excellent point. Even going full-on King Clancy, Red Horner, John Ferguson, Dave Shultz and all of the rest of them contemporaneously, those who followed, there was a "limit", a line you werent supposed to cross. "The Code". The axiom "Finish Your Check" did not infer nor suggest the right to hospitalize your opponent. Guys who totally snapped, had absolutely no self control, "lost it", were a danger to other players & themselves, a liability, generally weeded out through AAA or Major Junior, perhaps winding up in the old Eastern League or wherever, regardless of their "upside" in terms of skill.

Unfortunately, within the culture of Canadian hockey ranks, and I came up through the system when fighting & intimidation reigned supreme late 60's & early 70's from Junior to the pro's, winning was/is all and didnt really matter to a lot of organizations, their Managers, Scouts & Coaches how they achieved those goals. If you were big, say a defenceman, regardless how much skill you possessed, automatically expected to fight. For many, that was distasteful so they just up & quit. Others made the team over superior talent simply because of their size. As a goalie in my case, I can tell you that wasnt much fun, because generally half of these Monsters couldnt even skate backwards without falling on their butts, nor did I personally share or even appreciate tactics of the kind espoused by the Canadian Coaching fraternity of that era.

In my book, damn straight you "pull your punches", and if you cant control yourself, get off the ice, get off my team. Personally, I snapped a few times, whacked a guy across the head with my paddle when he literally took a Swan Dive at me from 20' out after Id smothered the puck & was waiting for a whistle, saw it in his eyes before he launched (seem to re-call getting a Major for it & playing short, but point made) & knocked him out cold, all Hell breaking loose as a result; couple of other times when one psycho tried to cut my throat with his blade, deliberate & nasty two hander; deliberately kicked in the head when I was down with a skate point when I was again smothering a puck; dozens of stitches as a result; all manner of insanity. The opposition trying to literally send me to the infirmary and on orders from their bench to do so.

Its interesting, you being of Finnish extraction, as Carl Brewer, who contributed much to the development of the game in Suomi Land as well bemoaned this mentality, that "tough hockey" had absolutely nothing to do with maiming or injuring your opponents, everything to do with "mental & physical toughness" in never saying "die", playing with pride, honour & integrity, like a God Damned "Sportsman" and not some psych job out on Parole. Dirty tricks & yapping, something he was absolutely adroit at employing, no problem, and you saw that, still see it in Finnish players. He too had a real problem with fighting, and in fact was painted as a guy who "Turtled" when challenged in (memory fails to retrieve the exact incident, but its there) either his Rookie or Sophomore year with the Leafs.... He was a mouthpiece, tremendously talented but an outlier, an agitator, and when the Bell finally rang he refused to answer it. Branded a "Coward" as a result for years thereafter, but one of the many difficulties he had when he decided to take on Eagleson & the NHL Pension Fund. None of the "Old School" players believed in him, lacked "guts", staying power.

Guess he showed them huh? ;)
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Ken Dryden

Earlier this year Peter Mansbridge interviewed Ken Dryden:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/Mansbridge+One+on+One/ID/2185029764/

Late in the interview,last 1/4, Ken Dryden makes the distinction between "fight" = the ability and willingness to compete hard to the end against insurmountable odds which defines Canadian hockey and "fighting" which is not a positive attribute in hockey.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,220
Late in the interview,last 1/4, Ken Dryden makes the distinction between "fight" = the ability and willingness to compete hard to the end against insurmountable odds which defines Canadian hockey and "fighting" which is not a positive attribute in hockey.

Y'know C58, having come up through the same system in the same city as Dryden though not "lucking out" in the same way, has to be said, he's abnormal, a "freak", not someone Id be inclined to be taking really very seriously at all, whatsoever. Yes, he was phenomenal in 71; steady & eccentric therafter; but GRAND? On tier with Plante, Parent? Dont believe so. Had a problem focusing, raising his game. Stats are tremendous. Top of the heap. Yet..... the elemental Junior B about him. Touch & Go.

Of his time, in that era, I can think of a dozen others I respected a lot more, only Esposito heralded with same volume of Trumpet, however, and as you well know, better goaltenders more than capable less pronounced on the scale. He stood on his head, stood tall in 71, but thereafter? Just how "great" was he? Lookit who he played behind. Integral?. Yes. Brilliant?. Sporadically. Consistent & Reliable? Yes. Over 6-7yrs. His is a style, place in time that deserves serious scrutiny, an autopsy. Who was Ken Dryden?.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Y'know C58, having come up through the same system in the same city as Dryden though not "lucking out" in the same way, has to be said, he's abnormal, a "freak", not someone Id be inclined to be taking really very seriously at all, whatsoever. Yes, he was phenomenal in 71; steady & eccentric therafter; but GRAND? On tier with Plante, Parent? Dont believe so. Had a problem focusing, raising his game. Stats are tremendous. Top of the heap. Yet..... the elemental Junior B about him. Touch & Go.

Of his time, in that era, I can think of a dozen others I respected a lot more, only Esposito heralded with same volume of Trumpet, however, and as you well know, better goaltenders more than capable less pronounced on the scale. He stood on his head, stood tall in 71, but thereafter? Just how "great" was he? Lookit who he played behind. Integral?. Yes. Brilliant?. Sporadically. Consistent & Reliable? Yes. Over 6-7yrs. His is a style, place in time that deserves serious scrutiny, an autopsy. Who was Ken Dryden?.

There is a tendency to get too academic or over intellectualize Ken Dryden's game. Simply he found ways to overcome adversity and win. Be it in the 1971 playoffs, 1972 Summit Series,1973, the 1976-79 dynasty Canadiens.

In terms of other dynasty goalies, three consecutive SC victories or more, no other goalie has a better W/L record. Dryden 48-10, Plante 40-9,Smith 57-13, Broda 24-5, Bower 22-11. By comparison Bernie Parent was 22-10 the two years the Flyers won the SC.

Al Davis said it best "Just win, baby" and at the end of the day that is why the games are played and watched. Winning is what matters and Ken Dryden was one of the best at winning. He brought the ability to fight thru adversity and battle until the team won. Style points, details, etc are secondary to the prime objective of winning.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,220
Al Davis said it best "Just win, baby" and at the end of the day that is why the games are played and watched. Winning is what matters and Ken Dryden was one of the best at winning. He brought the ability to fight thru adversity and battle until the team won. Style points, details, etc are secondary to the prime objective of winning.

... yes, all good points, and his record speaks for itself. I guess what Im getting at is why it was that he had so much trouble with the Soviets in 72. Was it a "lack of focus"? Was he "rattled" by their style of play, some early goals? Goals are the result of a series of breakdowns, yet in several instances against the USSR, he didnt seem to have it together at all.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
... yes, all good points, and his record speaks for itself. I guess what Im getting at is why it was that he had so much trouble with the Soviets in 72. Was it a "lack of focus"? Was he "rattled" by their style of play, some early goals? Goals are the result of a series of breakdowns, yet in several instances against the USSR, he didnt seem to have it together at all.

Team Canada did not have it all together as a team in 1972 for the reasons you have listed previously. The offense rarely played in unison relying mainly on individual talent or Soviet mistakes - see series winning goal, the defense likewise was more a function of individual efforts as opposed to a collective group effort. The forwards and defensemen rarely came together in synergy, the gaps varied too often and both groups were searching.

This impacts on the goalies as well. You never saw even the basic level of communications between the goalies and the skaters. Forget the near perfect harmony in communication that Johnny Bower had with the Leaf skaters a decade earlier.

Regardless Dryden and Esposito battled the last three games, giving the team the chance to overcome deficits and win.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
12,021
1,897
Rostov-on-Don
... yes, all good points, and his record speaks for itself. I guess what Im getting at is why it was that he had so much trouble with the Soviets in 72. Was it a "lack of focus"? Was he "rattled" by their style of play, some early goals? Goals are the result of a series of breakdowns, yet in several instances against the USSR, he didnt seem to have it together at all.

The Soviets were able to expose weaknesses in Dryden's east/west game. Such weaknesses didn't hinder Dryden's game so much in the 1970's NHL style.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
The Soviets were able to expose weaknesses in Dryden's east/west game. Such weaknesses didn't hinder Dryden's game so much in the 1970's NHL style.

The Canadiens' team defense was very strong against the East- West game. This was not reflected in the Team Canada roster or defense.

Similar to the present day NHL. Luongo in Vancouver is vulnerable to the East-West game because the Canucks team defense is very vulnerable in this regard. Other teams are not as vuknerable defensively.
 

RabbinsDuck

Registered User
Feb 1, 2008
4,761
12
Brighton, MI
Wasn't that the way Bobby Clarke and his team-mates in Philly played on a nightly basis in the NHL back then?

There is always a difference between the intent to hurt and the intent to injure... And it is definitely a fine and subjective line, always up for debate.

I've done a lot of reading of contemporary viewpoints in 1972 from media and player point of views recently and am a little shocked how little attention "the slash" received at the time, from both sides... While now it has become a focal point.

I stand by my earlier assertion it was just one of a series of questionable to downright dirty tactics employed by both sides in a series that meant a whole lot more than mere sport.
 

Macman

Registered User
May 15, 2004
3,461
447
I've done a lot of reading of contemporary viewpoints in 1972 from media and player point of views recently and am a little shocked how little attention "the slash" received at the time, from both sides... While now it has become a focal point.

This has always puzzled me as well. I haven't seen the series in its entirety since back in the day but I don't remember seeing the slash at the time or hearing anything about until years later. It's definitely become a foal point for some.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,587
4,983
Compare his numbers in the Olympics earlier that year (9 goals + 6 assists in 5 games) versus the Summit Series (3 goals + 4 assists in 7 games).

Seriously? Kharlamov doesn't score as much against NHL opposition as against Finland (3 goals + 3 assists in 1 game in the 72 Olympics) and Poland (2 goals + 2 assists in 1 game in the 72 Olympics) and you think that's an argument in your favour? Like the level of the opposition doesn't matter?

I haven't seen the series in its entirety since back in the day but I don't remember seeing the slash at the time...

You didn't see the slash and therefore it's not important? :help:

...or hearing anything about until years later.

"Kharlamov didn't play, his ankle still hurting from a Bobby Clarke slash. 'I am suprised he can walk, let alone limp,' Clarke says." - Montreal Gazette, 27th September 1972.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad