1972 Summit Series: shame or glory?

[loudi94]

Well thankyou LBD. You actually took the time to read my post. Foolish people seem to think Im still on attack. Fact is, we beat the Soviets through innovation & wild charges. Dont like it? Eat me Anatoli. Shoulda-coulda-woulda been no contest under different circumstances, and that "Junior B" handle woulda stuck. No frikin way their close to being our "equals". Hell, my Junior A Team at the that exact time, fall 72, wouldve clobbered Red Army. And thats a fact jack.

Not to split hairs here but it unless you played them and proceeded to clobber them, you can't call it a fact. It is only your opinion. An arrogant one at that. You manage to belittle the athletes on both teams with one statement.

 

[Noisespektrum]

Killion, your posts remind me of a taxi cab. :]

 

[Macman]

"8-0 Canada and that's the score of the first game". Canada was supposed to win the series in a walk. Up until Henderson's goal in game 8, the series was a colossal failure for Canada. It begins with the arrogance in which the Canadians displayed while preparing for the series was shameful. Scouting was shoddy. Players were out of shape. Once it became clear that the Soviets were better out of the gate the Canadian game plan changed. It took a while but they won more games in the end. They by no means won the series.

I do think that if they would have played 8 more games, Canada would have won most of those. However in terms of the 72 series, Canada was supposed to win all 8 games but didn't. Revisionist history will call the win a success.

No, only revisionist history would call one of the greatest comebacks in hockey history a loss.

 

[Macman]

Virtually the whole 'sent to Siberia' Gulags ended in the late 1950s. Regardless, no hockey player was going to be sent to a Siberian work camp.

There was an interesting documentary on Canadian TV this weekend (W5 news magazine) about Glenn Anderson's love of Russian hockey and his recent trip there for the 40th anniversary of the summit series. He interviewed Fetisov at one point and Fetisov talks about the period in the late '80s when he rebelled against Tikhonov and about his request to play in the NHL. Fetisov said he was taken to a police station and beaten and later threatened by Russia's defence minister to be sent to Siberia if he persisted. I have no idea if a player was ever sent but the threat, at least in this case, was obviously there. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/glenn-ande...ussia-changed-the-way-we-play-hockey-1.975721

 

[loudi94]

No, only revisionist history would call one of the greatest comebacks in hockey history a loss.

Newspapers and sports writers were predicting an eight game sweep, and the Russians might win one if they were lucky. As Alan Eagleson put it, "Anything less than an unblemished sweep of the Russians would bring shame down on the heads of the players and the national pride."

 

[1Gold Standard]

Can we put away the 72 series and forget it until the 50th anniversary rolls around.. or better yet forever....Yes, Canada was a little over-confident and learned a valuable lesson....but the final 7 games of the series was 4 wins 2 losses and 1 tie. We did ok and hockey was changed forever. I wasn't around for it, so sorry I just don't have the nostalgia for it.

 

[Macman]

Newspapers and sports writers were predicting an eight game sweep, and the Russians might win one if they were lucky. As Alan Eagleson put it, "Anything less than an unblemished sweep of the Russians would bring shame down on the heads of the players and the national pride."

And clearly Eagleson was wrong given the level of celebrating across the country afterwards and the reverance for the series 40 years later. Canadians sure didn't act like they lost or were ashamed. Eagleson included.

 

[loudi94]

And clearly Eagleson was wrong given the level of celebrating across the country afterwards and the reverance for the series 40 years later. Canadians sure didn't act like they lost or were ashamed. Eagleson included.

I don't disagree with that statement. However, the overwhelming consensus was that Canada was supposed to win all eight games handily. Canadians did act like they lost and were ashamed after game four in Vancouver. That series did not prove what it was meant to do. It was meant to show Canada's superiority at hockey. It clearly showed that we had much to learn about the game. In the end Canada won more games than the Soviets, but the bigger picture was much more than a 4-3-1 record.
Everyone claims that Canada was "tricked" by the Soviets into underestimating them. Perhaps, but as Ken Dryden once said. Rule #1 is to never underestimate your opponent. Had the Soviets not done the same after game 5, they very well could have won 6 of 8.
I get chills when I see the Henderson goal. The series comeback was a testament to determination and a take no prisoners approach. I don't ignore that the final result fell way short of the intended goal. Most reporters (great recap in the gazette) that covered the series will subtly remind people of that.

 

[Theokritos]

Hell, my Junior A Team at the that exact time, fall 72, wouldve clobbered Red Army. And thats a fact jack.

Maybe you would have clobbered them in the alley... but not even that is a fact.

Fetisov talks about the period in the late '80s when he rebelled against Tikhonov and about his request to play in the NHL. Fetisov said he was taken to a police station and beaten and later threatened by Russia's defence minister to be sent to Siberia if he persisted. I have no idea if a player was ever sent but the threat, at least in this case, was obviously there. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

The threat was there for every Soviet citizen who spoke out against the authorities, no doubt. That's what Fetisov did when he insisted on playing in the NHL. The treatment he received was the treatment of a non-conformist, a dissident. As bad as it was: it was for political reasons and not because he didn't train hard enough or because he reported to camp out of shape or because his performance on the ice was disappointing. Players in North America only had to fear the Minors while players in the Soviet Union had to fear Siberia? No, that's not what it was like.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Manipulation of Opportunity

The threat was there for every Soviet citizen who spoke out against the authorities, no doubt. That's what Fetisov did when he insisted on playing in the NHL. The treatment he received was the treatment of a non-conformist, a dissident. As bad as it was: it was for political reasons and not because he didn't train hard enough or because he reported to camp out of shape or because his performance on the ice was disappointing. Players in North America only had to fear the Minors while players in the Soviet Union had to fear Siberia? No, that's not what it was like.

Adroitly avoiding the real issue - Soviet Authority manipulating athletic and artistic freedom of expression.

Viktor Korchnoi - Chess Champion. The Soviet authorities favoured Anatoly Karpov instead of allowing merit in open, external competition to decide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Korchnoi

Rudolf Nureyev - Ballet Dancer. Defected. Documented evidence about political interference and KGB in his artistic career:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Nureyev

Siberia is simply a symbol word representing repression and denial of basic human rights and freedoms. In the case of hockey players or other athletic and artistic performers this directly controlled and impacted their performing and everyday life.

 

[solidmotion]

Killion, your posts remind me of a taxi cab. :]

huh, i'd say more like archie comics on acid

 

[Theokritos]

Siberia is simply a symbol word representing repression and denial of basic human rights and freedoms. In the case of hockey players or other athletic and artistic performers this directly controlled and impacted their performing and everyday life.

Not a symbol, at least not in the debate here. In post 322 it was explicitly claimed that Soviet hockey players faced the prospect of being "sent down" to "an underground hard rock coal mine in Siberia or outer Mongolia" whereas Canadian hockey players at worst had to fear the Minors.

 

[VMBM]

look this is easy to understand.
In the west, we had no idea the Russians were any good. Every time we were allowed to scout the lied and lied, Tretiak was swiss cheese and nobody could skate, shots were all wild. They looked like JR.B team.
Also this was their best team and played together all year. So The NHL just did not take this thing serious, the NHL players were coming off a very FAT summer and Nobody had played as a team at all. Boy were the NHL players sucking pond water after the first period, totally out of shape. SO ok BIG surprise in Montreal. But from that first game the NHL was on emergency catch-up and every game after that Team NHL was getting back in shape and becoming a team. by the time team NHL played the first game in Russia Team NHL was NOT the same team at all and it started to come alive on the ice. The Russians were on their heals and the only reason the games in the USSR were close was the REFS. The penalties were 10-1 for the Russians. Nearly every goal they scored was on a PP. 5 on 5 NHL were coming on strong every shift.

Interesting claim, and hopefully, at least, you're deliberately exaggerating with the 10-1 thing:

Penalty minutes per game (in Moscow):

G5, Canada 10 min., USSR 12 min.

- Biased refs my arse.

G6: Canada 31 min., USSR 4 min.

- Bingo. Of course, one could point out that the Canadians were playing very dirty in this game, and at least some of the major penalties were deserved. The offside calls are definitely strange BUT did the refs also miss a goal by Kharlamov? And was Clarke, for example, punished properly for his actions?

G7: Canada 23 min., USSR 17 min.

- Show me some proof of biased reffing in this game. I'd like to hear, honestly. And hopefully something better than "the Canadian players/media/broadcasters were mad about the reffing" etc.

G8: Canada 25 min., USSR 15 min.

- take away Parise's (well-deserved) 10 minute misconduct penalty, and - voilà - they are even. In the 3rd period, the Soviets got more penalties, including a questionable one for Vasiliev (after a hip-check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPuuwfrX5UE#t=34m36s). I hope that 'Soviet cheaters' got their money back...

And of course, one could complain about the reffing in Canada; for example, in game 4, Frank Mahovlich was allowed to take Tretiak out of the play (he basically 'sat on him') for about 10 seconds and wasn't penalized for it; what if Canada had scored during those 10 seconds???

PS. I was lazy and got the penalty minutes from (English) Wikipedia. Please correct them, if there's something wrong.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Could

Not a symbol, at least not in the debate here. In post 322 it was explicitly claimed that Soviet hockey players faced the prospect of being "sent down" to "an underground hard rock coal mine in Siberia or outer Mongolia" whereas Canadian hockey players at worst had to fear the Minors.

Reread post #322 focusing on the qualifier "could" as used by the poster:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1256899&page=13

No different than the examples about Korchnoi or Nureyev.

Could, the most powerful word used by Soviets, when controlling all elements of the population be it athletes, artists, workers, political allies and foes. The mind control of the threat that if it happened to politically connected people or renowned academics - Andrei Sakharov or any perceived dissidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov

then it could happen to mere athletes or hockey players.

 

[Theokritos]

Reread post #322 focusing on the qualifier "could" as used by the poster:
...
Could, the most powerful word used by Soviets, when controlling all elements of the population be it athletes, artists, workers, political allies and foes.

A distinction has to be made between two different meanings of could:
1) could as the simple past of can
2) could indicating the possibility of something now or in the future

Could as a threat used by the Soviets has the latter meaning because a threat only makes sense if it refers to a possibility in the present time or in the future: "We could send you to Siberia today or tomorrow." Could as used in post #322 however has the other meaning. Killion is talking about the conditions in a past time: "Back in the Soviet Union hockey players could be sent to Siberia." A wording that is indicating at least some hockey players were actually sent to Siberia. Otherwise the sentence would have to be understood in the following way: "In the SU Hockey players could be sent to Siberia, but they never were."

then it could happen to mere athletes or hockey players.

Never claimed otherwise. Please reread post #384. It could happen - but not for the same reasons a Canadian player would have been sent down to the Minors.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seriously.............

A distinction has to be made between two different meanings of could:
1) could as the simple past of can
2) could indicating the possibility of something now or in the future

Could as a threat used by the Soviets has the latter meaning because a threat only makes sense if it refers to a possibility in the present time or in the future: "We could send you to Siberia today or tomorrow." Could as used in post #322 however has the other meaning. Killion is talking about the conditions in a past time: "Back in the Soviet Union hockey players could be sent to Siberia." A wording that is indicating at least some hockey players were actually sent to Siberia. Otherwise the sentence would have to be understood in the following way: "In the SU Hockey players could be sent to Siberia, but they never were."



Never claimed otherwise. Please reread post #384. It could happen - but not for the same reasons a Canadian player would have been sent down to the Minors.

You are making a very artificial distinction between hockey players and the other Soviet citizens.

The Soviet hockey players were Soviet citizens, a small subgroup of a much larger group. There is no disputing the fact that Soviet citizens that were dissidents or not in step with the political or social winds of a specific time or day were actually sent to Siberia or suffered other affronts to human dignity and freedom. So the Soviet hockey players were under the could be sent to Siberia umbrella as well.

 

[Theokritos]

The Soviet hockey players were Soviet citizens, a small subgroup of a much larger group. There is no disputing the fact that Soviet citizens that were dissidents or not in step with the political or social winds of a specific time or day were actually sent to Siberia or suffered other affronts to human dignity and freedom. So the Soviet hockey players were under the could be sent to Siberia umbrella as well.

Dissidents were punished and if a hockey player was considered a dissident then he was no exception. It's just that he was not punished as a hockey player but as a dissident. The distinction is not artificial. There are cases reported from North Korea and Saudi Arabia where soccer players suffered similiar punishments for disappointing performances on the pitch. Therefore they were not punished as dissidents but as (failing) athletes.
Not so in the Soviet Union. Just like in the NHL, a Soviet player who failed to be in shape or in good form saw his role reduced or lost his spot on the team, but he was not sent to Siberia.

 

[Macman]

The fact Fetisov was threatened with banishment proves that at least the threat of it existed. Everything after that is semantics. Could, should, did, did not. Who cares? Under a regime in which people disappeared all the time for all kinds of reasons, fear ruled. Claiming he was viewed as a dissident doesn't justify it. Fetisov was an athlete who fell out of favour and they threatened to dispose of him. Whether or not it ever happened for poor athletic performance is irrelevant and unprovable. In their minds he was no longer performing as a good compliant Soviet athlete should. Does anybody really believe that under a system as unforgiving as that, that the thought of it happening for losing never crossed the mind of a Soviet athlete?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Boris Alexandrov

Interview with Boris Alexandrov is revealing about how the players were treated:

http://hockey-observer.blogspot.ca/2009/09/remembering-boris-alexandrov.html

 

[Theokritos]

The fact Fetisov was threatened with banishment proves that at least the threat of it existed.

Which is not a controversial issue. I'm sorry if I have failed to make that clear.

Under a regime in which people disappeared all the time for all kinds of reasons, fear ruled. Claiming he was viewed as a dissident doesn't justify it.

Just for the record: you're not claiming that I'm trying to justify the way the Soviet authorities treated those guys, right? The statement that they were punished as dissidents was made to state facts, not to justify what happened.

Fetisov was an athlete who fell out of favour and they threatened to dispose of him. Whether or not it ever happened for poor athletic performance is irrelevant and unprovable.

I think it's neither irrelevant nor unprovable.

Does anybody really believe that under a system as unforgiving as that, that the thought of it happening for losing never crossed the mind of a Soviet athlete?

Without further evidence? No, I don't believe it. It's not like the Soviets didn't lose every now and then.

 

[Macman]

Just for the record: you're not claiming that I'm trying to justify the way the Soviet authorities treated those guys, right?

Of course not. Apologies if I made it sound that way.

 

[Macman]

Without further evidence? No, I don't believe it. It's not like the Soviets didn't lose every now and then.

And yet there's this just recently:

http://rt.com/sport/football/russia-euro2012-football-greece-punishment-arshavin-126/

 

[Reks]

For people who are aware of real life in post-Stalin USSR all the above posts about sending the best athletes to the mines of Siberia is just a bad fantasy .
As for Fetisov, yes, one soviet military official threatened (it was black humor in fact) to send him to Siberia ... as a Major in charge of a Rifle Battalion.
Sure, it would be much worse than playing for New Jersey.

 

[Macman]

For people who are aware of real life in post-Stalin USSR all the above posts about sending the best athletes to the mines of Siberia is just a bad fantasy .
As for Fetisov, yes, one soviet military official threatened (it was black humor in fact) to send him to Siberia ... as a Major in charge of a Rifle Battalion.
Sure, it would be much worse than playing for New Jersey.

I doubt Fetisov found his beating at a police station to be darkly humorous.

 

[Killion]

Killion, your posts remind me of a taxi cab.

huh, i'd say more like archie comics on acid

... IIb's got it solidmotion. Roger Rabbit's Buddy Benny the Cab picks me up every morning at 8, takes me to work at the Gag Factory in Toontown, done by noon.