1972 Summit Series: shame or glory?

[Dennis Bonvie]

How about we put it this way....

Total Dirtiness of Soviets = Total Dirtiness of Canadians
= dirtiness was not a factor

= best team won.






One could argue all representatives of the Evil Empire were devils.

But I hate politics

... and you're a fan of devils.

You could put it that way, but it still isn't true.

 

[mrzeigler]

Moral revisionism is morally wrong in my opinion.

Well... small-minded, at the very least.

If you ran a glory/shame poll in 1972, near 100% of Canadians would’ve said GLORY.

It seems as though today you might have a mixed result in regards to that Series.

Canadians of 1972 were much better judges of what was morally acceptable in 1972.

See they weren’t looking at one particular incident in a vacuum as most are today.

See those ‘72 Russkies were ACTUALLY every bit as dirty as those '72 Canadians.

And dirty play was more acceptable in 1972.

The slash on Kharlamov was just one of hundreds of cheap shots by both sides.

Let’s Clean Up Hockey Folk have blown that one particular play WAY out of proportion.

Politics suck.

Oh, I hear you on that. And the BS wasn't just limited to on the ice. The several in-the-middle-of-the-night phone calls to the Candandian players' hotel rooms while in Russia to ensure that they didn't get a good night's sleep offers just a glimpse into the petty nastiness that the political climate encouraged.

I just presumed that since this question was being asked in the year 2012, it was intended to gauge opinion of the contemporary fan, and that should allow for how the fans' opinions of hockey violence/toughness might have changed over that period.

The problem I have with what Clarke did is its premeditation. It was a deliberate act so far outside the rules that the political climate isn't enough to rationalize it away.

Really, this is what we're talking about:



Although I may have yelled "sweep the leg" at a hockey game once or twice — or, to my wife's chagrin, a dozen times or so — history hasn't exonerated Johnny Lawrence. Same with Bobby Clarke.


**************

I just saw the quote last page from RabbinsDuck, and that's a very good point. I zeroed in on the most notorious incident of the series and I still feel it's a giant stain on Bobby Clarke. Shame might be too strong a word for the impact it has on the victory, but it definitely taints it for me. Of course, that doesn't make it any less compelling of a series. Quite the opposite, but ... there will always be that "but" when I think of the outcome.

 

[Killion]

....but ... there will always be that "but" when I think of the outcome.

Me too, "but" for far different reasons. Had Sinden figured out how to break the Soviets flow & cycle early, like after Game 1 or 2 instead of after Game 4, entirely different outcome; serious smackdown. The Soviets were absolutely "dirty". Butt ends, slashing, elbows, kicking. When Team Canada arrived in the USSR, the food they'd brought over vanished, they received odd phone calls all night long, every hour or so, partiers & revellers stationed on the streets right outside their windows.

Then there was the refereeing. Absolutely deplorable. Its a wonder there wasnt a full scale brawl just about everytime the ref blue his whistle; Canada, 2 Minutes. Dirty? What Clarke did was Justice. Gettin back some of Team Canadas' own. That was the "code" back then. You mess with us you pay the price and if the cops dont see it I didnt do it. If they do see it, accident. Stuff like thats been going on in hockey since the late 19th century. February 1899, Montreal vs. Winnipeg, Stanley Cup Challenge, MacDougall's slash to Gingras (below the knee, back of the leg). All kinds of examples. Amateur, Junior, Senior, semi & minor pro etc etc etc. You know of an opponents injury, as in where & what, you put him out. Take no prisoners. Your there to win.

I feel nothing but pride for Team Canada 72's win, watched the entire series transfixed to the television like everyone else. The ice was slanted against them & they triumphed. Shed not a tear for Kharlamov nor did I change an already formed opinion of Clarke that he was an extremely useful & talented nasty piece of work who Id have on my team anyday. So no "but for Clarkes' 2 hander" from me. The Soviets were even dirtier, on & OFF the ice.... I remember that quite clearly, and offer no apologies for supporting Clarkes slash.

Dude had it comin.

 

[newfy]

You could put it that way, but it still isn't true.

Just curious since youre American, but how much do you even know about this series? How many games have you actually sat through and watched because anyone who has watched the series would know that overall the dirty play was very equal. Especially if you take the Russian "off ice" dirty play into consideration.

 

[GameEight]

1972 - Summit Series Tribute

So, I just signed up, hope I'm not breaking protocol here, but this weekend, on the 40th anniversary of Phil Esposito's interview I posted the video below, which is dedicated to Team Canada 72.

 

[Strangelove]

Me too, "but" for far different reasons. Had Sinden figured out how to break the Soviets flow & cycle early, like after Game 1 or 2 instead of after Game 4, entirely different outcome; serious smackdown. The Soviets were absolutely "dirty". Butt ends, slashing, elbows, kicking. When Team Canada arrived in the USSR, the food they'd brought over vanished, they received odd phone calls all night long, every hour or so, partiers & revellers stationed on the streets right outside their windows.

Then there was the refereeing. Absolutely deplorable. Its a wonder there wasnt a full scale brawl just about everytime the ref blue his whistle; Canada, 2 Minutes. Dirty? What Clarke did was Justice. Gettin back some of Team Canadas' own. That was the "code" back then. You mess with us you pay the price and if the cops dont see it I didnt do it. If they do see it, accident. Stuff like thats been going on in hockey since the late 19th century. February 1899, Montreal vs. Winnipeg, Stanley Cup Challenge, MacDougall's slash to Gingras (below the knee, back of the leg). All kinds of examples. Amateur, Junior, Senior, semi & minor pro etc etc etc. You know of an opponents injury, as in where & what, you put him out. Take no prisoners. Your there to win.

I feel nothing but pride for Team Canada 72's win, watched the entire series transfixed to the television like everyone else. The ice was slanted against them & they triumphed. Shed not a tear for Kharlamov nor did I change an already formed opinion of Clarke that he was an extremely useful & talented nasty piece of work who Id have on my team anyday. So no "but for Clarkes' 2 hander" from me. The Soviets were even dirtier, on & OFF the ice.... I remember that quite clearly, and offer no apologies for supporting Clarkes slash.

Dude had it comin.

NICE, now here's a guy who was THERE

Unlike others who may as well be commenting on the fall of the Roman Empire.

Y'know some say the butterfly effect of "The Slash" brought down the wall....

But seriously, I find it hilarious and sad that so many focus on that one incident.

Twas one of hundreds people.

It was war and the right team won.

Nyet nyet Soviet! Da da Canada!!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just curious since youre American, but how much do you even know about this series? How many games have you actually sat through and watched because anyone who has watched the series would know that overall the dirty play was very equal. Especially if you take the Russian "off ice" dirty play into consideration.

I watched the series when it happened.

I'm not considering the "off ice" stuff. I have a strong suspicion the Soviets were juiced on more than just coffee. A couple of Canadian players commented on how strong the Soviet players were.

Maybe my memory isn't razor sharp, but I'm sure at the time I felt the Russians played a much cleaner game. I was rooting for Canada but I was shocked by how good the Soviets were without the "physical" aspect that Canada used.

 

[Killion]

NICE, now here's a guy who was THERE
Nyet nyet Soviet! Da da Canada!!

... wonderful little tune by BB Gabor titled Nyet Nyet Soviet too btw. Punk/New Wavish. Circa late 70's early 80's.

"Well, I guess I could always come back as a forward".
Harold Snepts after being told by a Doctor that he should
think about wearing a helmet after his like, 47th concussion.

 

[CaptBrannigan]

My thought has always been as follows: If you feel that the only way you can slow/stop a player is to injure him, than you're admitting he is much better than you. Certainly true in the Clarke Kharlamov case IMO. Any "justification" of this act or the kick is sad.

 

[Gigantor The Goalie]

Just love watching that old footage and hearing the stories from the players and coaches themselves. Feels that we won back in '72. Say all you want how Clarke was a meanie and hurt Kharlamov. Point is we won because Paul Henderson decided to play out of his mind and the rest of the team put it together in Moscow.

I wonder if the Soviets stealing the food and beer, starting up construction right outside the hotel and those midnight phone calls brought the Canadian team together?

The Soviets had three chances on home ice to win the series and they couldn't do it. Also the Soviets never admitted they even lost the series to the Canadians. All their newspapers that carried the story talked about how the Russians scored more goals in the series then Canada did.

 

[Strangelove]

My thought has always been as follows: If you feel that the only way you can slow/stop a player is to injure him, than you're admitting he is much better than you. Certainly true in the Clarke Kharlamov case IMO. Any "justification" of this act or the kick is sad.

Interesting Capt B, so what do you make of the fact most of the Russkies (including dirty ole Kharlamov) would've injured just about any Canadian player if he could've gotten away with it? (and vice versa of course )

(did I mention the Summit Series was "war"?).

And what do you make of some of the heroes of old? Rocket Richard, Scott Stevens, Gordie Howe, Chris Chelios, Bobby Clarke, Mark Messier, etc, etc

If you were never a fan of "old-time hockey" you prolly don't feel quite at home in a thread about 1972 amirite buddy?

 

[Theokritos]

The undetected slash he made on Clarke that Clarke retaliated for with "The Slash".

But what about Clarke's undetected kick against Kharlamov's head? Are you not aware of that incident? Oh well, it was undetected and no-one has ever talked about it, not even Kharlamov, but hey, I'm detecting undetected stuff, just believe me.

actually "in other words" you don't know the meaning of "revisionism".

Usually I don't use Wikipedia, but in this case it has a handy description: "In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history." Given that I am a student of history outside of my HFBoards existence, I concede I like historical revisionism.

Henderson's comments from 2002 reflect the sensibilities of the 2000s more than anything (which were very different from the sensibilities of the 1970s). Opinions on the act will certainly be different in 2030, and 2060, based on the sensibilities of those times.

Doesn't change one iota of the fact that intentionally injuring an opponent is wrong. 1972, 2002, whatever, it's not part of the game of hockey to slash the ankle of an opponent. Some people didn't see it as clearly in 1972, but realized it later on. Call it changing sensibility, I call it improved insight.

Consider that the process of changing opinions over decades may not lead to any better conclusions - just different ones.

So the conclusion that intentionally slashing the ankle of an opponent is wrong is not better than the conclusion that slashing the ankle of an opponent is fine? I can't believe you're serious.

Moral revisionism is morally wrong in my opinion.

In ancient times people thought it was only natural and human to enslave other people. Labeling this idea and practice as inhumane from a modern point of view would be wrong in your opinion?
Or take the gladiator fights in Rome. You would condemn the condemning of those practices? Even if there were people in Ancient Rome who were already sharing our "modern" point of view and who spoke out against the gladiator fights? Just like there were people in Canada in 1972 who critizised the brutal behaviour of some Canadian players. And just like there was a growing number of Canadians (among them hockey greats like Serve Savard, Bobby Hull and Jacques Lemaire) who critizised Canadian "goonery" in the following years. You can't accuse those people of revisionist history, only of progressiveness, but if you use that as a charge you automatically show your true colour.

Canadians of 1972 were much better judges of what was morally acceptable in 1972.

Just as Germans of ~1943 would be much better judges of what was moraly acceptable in 1943? Bulls...

...The Soviets were even dirtier, on & OFF the ice.... I remember that quite clearly, and offer no apologies for supporting Clarkes slash

You have the homer glasses on. The Russians remember quite clearly that the Canadians were even dirtier. This kind of talk leads us nowhere, so take the glasses off and try to occupy an impartial standpoint.

 

[Strangelove]

... wonderful little tune by BB Gabor titled Nyet Nyet Soviet too btw. Punk/New Wavish. Circa late 70's early 80's.

Better dead than red.

"Well, I guess I could always come back as a forward".

Harold Snepts after being told by a Doctor that he should
think about wearing a helmet after his like, 47th concussion.

Meh, concussions, a real man just skates em off!

 

[Rob Scuderi]

You have the homer glasses on. The Russians remember quite clearly that the Canadians were even dirtier. This kind of talk leads us nowhere, so take the glasses off and try to occupy an impartial standpoint.

You're forgetting the long-standing principle that two wrongs make a right. All Canadians have to do to make claim "fair is fair" is find instances where Soviets were unfair. I mean sure their moral outrage was so legitimate that they got back at the worst Soviet of them all.

Oh no they just injured the player who would have caused them a lot more hurt than the one who actually kicked someone?

 

[Strangelove]

But what about Clarke's undetected kick against Kharlamov's head? Are you not aware of that incident? Oh well, it was undetected and no-one has ever talked about it, not even Kharlamov, but hey, I'm detecting undetected stuff, just believe me.

Bobby Clarke was many things, but he was not a liar!

As a matter of fact he was known for being brutally honest.

If he says "The Slash" was retaliatory, who are we to question that?

Bobby Clarke is an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Strangelove: "Moral revisionism is morally wrong in my opinion."

In ancient times people thought it was only natural and human to enslave other people. Labeling this idea and practice as inhumane from a modern point of view would be wrong in your opinion?
Or take the gladiator fights in Rome. You would condemn the condemning of those practices? Even if there were people in Ancient Rome who were already sharing our "modern" point of view and who spoke out against the gladiator fights?

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

YES, I would condemn the condemning of those practices.

Who are we to tell them what is right and what is wrong?

Strangelove: "Canadians of 1972 were much better judges of what was morally acceptable in 1972."

Just as Germans of ~1943 would be much better judges of what was moraly acceptable in 1943? Bulls...

Actually the Allies of ~1945 were the better judges of what was morally acceptable in 1943.

To the victors go the spoils!

DA DA CANADA!!

 

[Strangelove]

You're forgetting the long-standing principle that two wrongs make a right.

Quite right, Tit for Tat is a long-standing hockey principle

(taken from the pre-hockey "Eye for an Eye" principle).

In the Summit Series though, it was more like 300 wrongs make a right.

 

[overpass]

Doesn't change one iota of the fact that intentionally injuring an opponent is wrong. 1972, 2002, whatever, it's not part of the game of hockey to slash the ankle of an opponent. Some people didn't see it as clearly in 1972, but realized it later on. Call it changing sensibility, I call it improved insight.



So the conclusion that intentionally slashing the ankle of an opponent is wrong is not better than the conclusion that slashing the ankle of an opponent is fine? I can't believe you're serious.



In ancient times people thought it was only natural and human to enslave other people. Labeling this idea and practice as inhumane from a modern point of view would be wrong in your opinion?
Or take the gladiator fights in Rome. You would condemn the condemning of those practices? Even if there were people in Ancient Rome who were already sharing our "modern" point of view and who spoke out against the gladiator fights? Just like there were people in Canada in 1972 who critizised the brutal behaviour of some Canadian players. And just like there was a growing number of Canadians (among them hockey greats like Serve Savard, Bobby Hull and Jacques Lemaire) who critizised Canadian "goonery" in the following years. You can't accuse those people of revisionist history, only of progressiveness, but if you use that as a charge you automatically show your true colour.



Just as Germans of ~1943 would be much better judges of what was moraly acceptable in 1943? Bulls...



You have the homer glasses on. The Russians remember quite clearly that the Canadians were even dirtier. This kind of talk leads us nowhere, so take the glasses off and try to occupy an impartial standpoint.

This thread is not about whether Clarke and Ferguson's actions were wrong. I think they were wrong. Hey, I'm living in 2012 too.

The sensibility of the 21st century that is coming across ITT is the idea that finding a victim trumps everything. The idea that the story of 1972 isn't the great hockey, the battle on the ice, the clash of civilizations, belief systems, and hockey systems. No, it's a single action on the ice in which two men out of over thirty Canadians played a part and which resulted in an opposing player missing a few periods to a hockey injury. Millions of Canadians are wrong - they thought they cheered for something good, but we, their enlightened descendants, can tell them now that they were wrong. It was all bad. It was illegitimate. Henderson's game-winning goals, Esposito's tremendous play and spirit, and the contributions by every other Canadian player mean nothing, and every Canadian should apologize for ever having cheered for them.

Canada should be proud of winning the Summit Series.

 

[Theokritos]

Bobby Clarke was many things, but he was not a liar!

As a matter of fact he was known for being brutally honest.

If he says "The Slash" was retaliatory, who are we to question that?

Bobby Clarke is an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Officer of the Order of Canada.
That means as much as the Lenin Peace Prize to me: next to nothing.
I question what Clarke says and I'm probably not the only one.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

YES, I would condemn the condemning of those practices.

Who are we to tell them what is right and what is wrong?

See, and that's where our conversation has to stop because we don't have any common ground. The both of us have existence, but that is about everything we share.

This thread is not about whether Clarke and Ferguson's actions were wrong. I think they were wrong. Hey, I'm living in 2012 too.

Fine, that's all I need to know. My beef is with posters who don't even seem to find anything wrong in what Clarke did.

 

[VladNYC*]

Bobby Clarke is the biggest piece of **** in hockey. The Kharlamov slash is just a minor blemish on the pimpled ass that is his life.

There is nothing to say to anyone who thinks that Kharlamov was as dirty as Clarke. Nobody was as dirty as Clarke. That is a realm of science fiction that there isn't room for even on the internet.

These kind of excuses and made up nonsense are just tools to cover up your shame.

Canada won on the score board but the USSR was the real victor in the 72 series. The USSR's play put Soviet Hockey on the map in big way, it revolutionized the game and Canada was exposed for what it was, goons who had to resort to violence to win. Canada has never been able to shake that label since that series, 40 years it has lasted now. On the other side of the coin the Soviet and now Russian hockey players came out perceived as immensely skilled, conditioned and dedicated athletes, a label that has also stuck for 40 years since that series.

 

[VladNYC*]

Officer of the Order of Canada.

Isn't that one of those medals Brezhnev invented and then awarded him self?

 

[overpass]

In ancient times people thought it was only natural and human to enslave other people. Labeling this idea and practice as inhumane from a modern point of view would be wrong in your opinion?
Or take the gladiator fights in Rome. You would condemn the condemning of those practices? Even if there were people in Ancient Rome who were already sharing our "modern" point of view and who spoke out against the gladiator fights? Just like there were people in Canada in 1972 who critizised the brutal behaviour of some Canadian players. And just like there was a growing number of Canadians (among them hockey greats like Serve Savard, Bobby Hull and Jacques Lemaire) who critizised Canadian "goonery" in the following years. You can't accuse those people of revisionist history, only of progressiveness, but if you use that as a charge you automatically show your true colour.

Actually I wouldn't condemn the ancients for practicing slavery. At times it was the best option available in a particular time and place. Better to enslave a conquered population than killing everyone. Slaves usually had the possibility of becoming free, making it a temporary condition rather than a permanent identity. (Modern race-based slavery is another story.)

 

[VladNYC*]

TSN is showing all three games of the '87 Canada Cup final this week. I eagerly await the usual excuses and we wuz robbed rants.

When are they showing the 81' Canada Cup final?

Or is losing 8-1 at home in a tourney that's meant for you to win not your cup of tea?

 

[Theokritos]

The sensibility of the 21st century that is coming across ITT is the idea that finding a victim trumps everything. The idea that the story of 1972 isn't the great hockey, the battle on the ice, the clash of civilizations, belief systems, and hockey systems. No, it's a single action on the ice in which two men out of over thirty Canadians played a part and which resulted in an opposing player missing a few periods to a hockey injury. Millions of Canadians are wrong - they thought they cheered for something good, but we, their enlightened descendants, can tell them now that they were wrong. It was all bad. It was illegitimate. Henderson's game-winning goals, Esposito's tremendous play and spirit, and the contributions by every other Canadian player mean nothing, and every Canadian should apologize for ever having cheered for them.

Another note: You may find the 21st century point of view one-sided, but isn't the traditional view of Canada's Triumph of the Will one-sided as well? If it wasn't so, Clarke wouldn't be a "hero" and "Canadian icon" in the eyes of some to this day. One could view the 21st century sensibility as a necessary counterweight balancing out the older view and making way for the next stage, a balanced and fair evaluation similiar to the one we have here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1247713.

 

[Killion]

Just as Germans of ~1943 would be much better judges of what was moraly acceptable in 1943? Bulls... You have the homer glasses on. The Russians remember quite clearly that the Canadians were even dirtier. This kind of talk leads us nowhere, so take the glasses off and try to occupy an impartial standpoint.

... ahh, rather beyond offensive and in extremely bad taste to compare Canada & Canadians perspectives about hockey & the Summit Series circa 1972 to Germany & the German civilian populations perspectives circa 1943 to War & Genocide, analogously or not. Lobbing hyperbolic incendiaries a reckless & dangerous pursuit without the bomb being packed with so much as a gram of humour.

Now, I dont know where you were in 1972, or if you were even alive, but the World was a far different place. Damn straight I was a "Homer", it wasnt just Canada vs USSR in some "friendly", it was Us against Them, Capitalism vs Communism, the West against the East, NHL All Stars vs Full Time Red Army Soldiers. The Soviets in collusion with IIHF & Olympic Committee had for over 10yrs made a mockery of the rules insisting their players were amateurs, winning everything by cheating on the international stage.

Im not going to expound upon the Cold War, Cuba & the Bay of Pigs, the Space Race and the buildup of inter-continental nuclear missiles, industrial & geo-political sabotage, theft, assassinations, spy rings & all of the rest of it, but ya, they were our enemies. Communists. The World on the brink of nuclear warfare on at least 2 or 3 occasions. We were brought up in Canada, the US & the UK (amongst other countries of course) to at minimum distrust their motives, words. Hell, in schools, exercises called "Duck & Cover", hiding under your desk rehearsals for when the Soviets tried to blow us all off the face of the earth. It was a major concern, a huge deal & worry.

They ran a corrupt regime. By the time 70-71 rolls around, things were loosening up a bit & desperate for cash, Eagleson promised & delivered it. Literally in Samsonite suitcases directly into the hands of individual officials & party members or into numbered Swiss Bank Accounts. I know this for a fact because I know people who were directly involved, handled & delivered the cash, worked with Al for years including subsequent Canada Cups. Money that was supposed to have gone to the NHL Players Associations Pension & Rainy Day Accounts but thats another story altogether and one both well documented & discussed at length elsewhere.

And so now here you are telling me Im not only mistaken about the Soviets being cheaters, criminals, absolutely dirty, gutless players on the ice who after slashing, kicking, shoving & sucker punching, elbowing & butt ending our players & then refusing to back it up by dropping the gloves (and ya, getting ejected but so what? Man the eff up) that Im "impartial and a homer"? That "according to the Soviets Team Canadas' players were dirty" yadda yadda yadda well excuse me all to Hell if I tell you flat out that you dont know **** from Shinola, Ham from Cheese, Whiskey from Water. You at least openly admit that your a big fan of revisionism, so I guess thats a start.

I watched, every single game when it was happening, was playing Jr. myself at that time so I paid particular attention. Have re-watched games on tape, DVD's, TV specials. I suggest you do the same, and watch the Soviet players closely. After doing so, if you still believe they were innocent Lambs being slapped around unmercifully by the Big Bad Pro's then I dont know what to say to you, because tell ya what, my eyesights close to 20/20, I rarely wear sunglasses, no need for the John Lennon Rose Coloured Granny Spec's youve prescribed Theo, but thanks anyway. You can keep em. Seems youve been wearing them yourself for about 40 years, wouldnt wanna deprive you in anyway...

 

[Theokritos]

Actually I wouldn't condemn the ancients for practicing slavery. At times it was the best option available in a particular time and place. Better to enslave a conquered population than killing everyone. Slaves usually had the possibility of becoming free, making it a temporary condition rather than a permanent identity.

Sorry, but you are really off the mark here. The possibility of becoming free existed in Rome, but not in Greece and other ancient socities. Rome is an exception here and even there it was far from an possibility for everybody: those who had to work in the mines and in other physically burdening circumstances were pretty much condemned to death because they couldn't even survive long enough to reach the prospect of freedom. And the claim that it was the best option available would cause every historian headache. It was economically beneficial and therefore "good" for the slaveholders, but nothing more. Better to enslave them then to kill them? Alright, but why not free them altogether?