1974 Canada/Soviet Summit

[Zine]

Ya Im not going to try & defend Bobby Clarke, that was a despicable thing to do, absolutely HOWEVER it was not outside the norm of the serious Junior through Pro ranks of that era, previously through the history of the game itself, part of the culture of the game in Canada when you were coming up. You did "win at all costs" & that absolutely included deliberately targeting the oppositions best players by running your mouth at them, with the body, putting them right through the boards if possible.

Clarke was an elite player who made room for himself with his stick which he wielded like a scalpel or a baseball bat as the circumstances dictated. Beyond potty mouth to boot. Total Guttersnipe. Language that would peel paint. Got in peoples heads. Very effective. Malicious, viscous little Woody Woodpecker. Absolutely. A product of the time & era, the prevailing environment & attitudes. Pro's & up & comer Junior, indeed the entire hockey establishment had no time for the utopian philosophies of a Lloyd Percival, Carl Brewer, Father David Bauer or a Billy Harris. You went out there to WIN and usually borderline controlled Mayhem was the name of the game if you found yourself overwhelmed. The Code strictly enforced if & when any player took it to far or cheap shotted someone.

Two handers behind the play, an Eddie Shack type jumping on a players back or knocking him silly, elbows up in front of the net or corners was all part n' parcel of the game & if you didnt like it get off the ice. This wasnt "shinny". Hockey was & still is to some extent a Blood Sport. You tacitly accepted that when you moved on from amateur. That ya, there were guys out there who were psycho & wouldnt think twice about taking you right out of the game given a chance. The Russians didnt play like that, understand it, but tell ya what? They learned real fast. I rember watching the 72 Summit and being disgusted with Canada to the point that after about Game 3 I stopped watching, only returning to watch the final 2 games. Out of shape discombobulated Canucksters Gooning it up because they were getting beat to the puck, losing control, resorting to the lowest common denominator.

At the time and in retrospect I felt it wouldve served the game far better had Canada simply iced the Montreal Canadiens under Pollock with some additions & deletions to their existing line-up. Though Sinden had had international experience, never felt he was the right choice, much less employing the services of John Ferguson. You kidding me? You wanna stage a "friendly" with that guy & Sinden behind the bench, influencing player selection, strategies & tactics? Dont think so. At the NHL level, minor-pro or Junior sure, great guys. Brilliant. But not on the international stage. No Siree Bob... all that being said, what happened happened. I just dont think its right to continue to crucify Clarke or a guy like Rick Ley, nor any of the Soviet players who committed fouls in the heat of the moment some 40yrs ago.... was the first real meeting between the then reigning hockey super powers and Russia had to earn its stripes. They did so magnificently, and the game is better for it. In fact, never mind the final score, in so many respects they were the actual winners of the 72 Summit.

1. 'Heat of the moment'? Unlike the other dirty plays, reactions and tactics employed by both sides in the series (i.e. Mikhailov kick, etc.), Clarke's slash was a premeditated attack, ordered from the bench, with the sole intent of removing Soviets best player.

2. Canadians would no doubt view such an act differently if roles were reversed.
Had Ragulin (on premeditated orders from Bobrov) intentionally and blatantly taken out Esposito, no amount of alcohol could make me believe the Canadian reaction would be "despicable play, but that's hockey, win at all costs, if you don't like it get off the ice." Not in a million years.

 

[Sentinel]

... ah, not so fast there. I consider myself (a Canadian) to be ethically & morally centered, and I certainly dont "hang my head in shame" because of Clarkes' slash on Kharlamov nor any other atrocities any member of Team Canada 72 nor any other version & the players that followed thereafter may or may not have committed. You have to look at these thing properly & put them into context. The context of the era & times, from sociopolitical to sport and beyond just hockey itself. You'd had years of Cold War frustrations. East vs West. Transcended just hockey. The Russians every bit as dirty as Canada though I will say the Canadians definitely started much of it. You cant hold them up to todays standards & then excoriate their wicked play as that is exactly how the game was played from Junior through Pro at that time. What Clarke & Ley, all of them were brought up with.

Didnt matter if your name was Boris or Brian to Bobby Clarke or Ricky Ley, either tactically or in retribution you, the opponent, were goin down. Cant beat you with skill? We'll beat you by hook or by crook and if that means getting down & dirty so be it. Thats the way hockey was in Canada back then. Or if evenly matched in talent & some guy breaks The Code? Drop em. Nothing new in targeting the opponents top player or players and if you can, put him out of the game. Thats just the way it was & still is with some. Why should I or any other Canadian feel shame for that? I dont think so. Was it right what Clarke et al did? Of course not & had the Russians been playing by North American rules & standards shouldve been a bench clearing brawl with Clarke being sent off on a stretcher. But to feel "shame" for what members of Team Canada did if your a Canadian or "shame" for what some of the Soviet era players did if your a Russian? I dont think so. No reason to be putting that hair shirt on & forever Crucifying the actors involved. The past is a strange place, they do things differently back there.

This post has huge contradictions, bordering on bipolar. First you are saying that Russians were every bit as dirty as Canadians, then you say this is the way they played in Canada (and only in Canada, presumably) at the time ("brought up with it").

You say that what Clarke and Ley did was wrong ("despicable," in fact) and then in the same breath say that it wasn't at all shameful, although the chain of logic is clear: "doing something wrong in a game" = "breaking the rules of the game" = "cheating" = "shameful" (especially in a victory *this* close).

When you describe their play as "winning at all costs," you give an example of "putting the opposing player right through the boards if possible." Even you didn't list breaking one's ankle as part of "winning at all costs." Clearly, what Clarke did was beyond the "whatever it takes" justification.

You call him "the product of the era" yet he stood out head and shoulders in the nastiness above (or should I say "below") his peers. Ferguson / Sinden asked *him* to eliminate Kharlamov, not Esposito or Cournoyer.

The bottomline is: Canada's dirty play was a huge factor in this series. If you think it's OK to goon it up if you are losing, resolving to "the lowest common denominator" (your own words) and deliberately injuring top players of the opposition, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people agreeing with you (including Esposito and Clarke themselves). If you think what they did was wrong, then it's AUTOMATICALLY shameful and disgraceful.

 

[Killion]

1. 'Heat of the moment'? Unlike the other dirty plays, reactions and tactics employed by both sides in the series (i.e. Mikhailov kick, etc.), Clarke's slash was a premeditated attack, ordered from the bench, with the sole intent of removing Soviets best player.

2. Canadians would no doubt view such an act differently if roles were reversed.

The fact that Mikhailov "kicked" anyone at all clearly demonstrated to me at least that the Soviets were totally unfamiliar with The Code. Had no exposure to nor experience with such a foreign concept. Im sure had he been raised in Canada he'd have dropped his gloves & layed a smackdown on the target of his anger. Purely emotional & thoughtless reaction, sick & tired of being bullied. Lost his mind in the heat of the moment and turned A.N.I.M.A.L. Viscous. So what? He didnt kill anyone. These were two very different Worlds colliding. Soviets outraged by the Canadians tactics. Worst thing you can do is kick someone with your skate or use your stick on them like a Lance, Doublehanders like Clarkie and a bunch of the rest of them. Russian was pushed over the edge.

It wasnt in the Soviets DNA, wasnt part of their game to target a top player for the opposition & deliberately, maliciously & recklessly hit them with intent to injure. Wasnt until they were on the receiving end of Team Canadas' abuse in 72 that they woke up to the realities of Canadian hockey and a rude awakening at that. I have often thought that it must have been a terrible disappointment to them. Here were these Supermen they'd heard so much about, must have been at first very nervous & intimidated by the lot of them. Yet they played their game, disciplined, cycle hockey. Caught the Canadians out of shape & out of breath who resorted to clutch and grab. Not all of them of course but it only takes a few to wreak havoc. Canada played desperate, the Soviets were a work of art, beautiful masterpiece. I personally couldnt stand watching what some of the Canadians were obviously up to & doing & as I said earlier, didnt even bother watching games 3-6. Made my blood boil.

You may have a hard time wrapping your head around it Zine, but the way they played to me at that time here in Canada when I myself was playing Junior was acceptable on Canadian or American ice, but I did hold them to a higher standard in playing the Soviets and railed against the dirt they were dishing. I realize that may seem hypocritical, that its ok to play that way in North America but its not cool to play that way in international competition but it was an attitude and opinion shared by many on this side of the pond. I didnt feel "shame" watching Team Canada but pride in that for most of them they were doing their best & played it clean. Had a Team USSR player taken out a Canadian on orders or even just Freelancing with viscous Crosscheck, Spear or whatever Id have merely chalked it up to "well, thats hockey".

Id seen it happen dozens upon dozens of times watching, playing the game myself. Guy carted off on a stretcher or limping off the ice, into the dressing room & done or given an injection and frozen, stitched up or whatever, sent out again. I got kicked in the back of the leg a few times as goalie in scrambles, cut for a lot of stitches. Couple of times Im sure it was deliberate. And thats just the way it was. Total War. You played for keeps & you played to win and if that meant going Criminal you did so. I dont know why this concept is so hard to understand, grasp. Its not shinny. Its not a friendly (a concept I dont even understand, how can your opponent be a "friendly" in hockey?- anathema to competition, some late 17th Century Croquet term). So no Zine, I wouldnt be sitting here 41yrs later railing against some Soviet player for breaking his stick across a Team Canada players ankles and putting him out of the series. Casualty of War. Bring in a new trooper. No one is indispensable.

 

[Killion]

This post has huge contradictions, bordering on bipolar.

.... I guess I should be offended but no. Read the above Sentinel. Then get back ta me.

 

[Zine]

The fact that Mikhailov "kicked" anyone at all clearly demonstrated to me at least that the Soviets were totally unfamiliar with The Code.

No it doesn't.

Had no exposure to nor experience with such a foreign concept. Im sure had he been raised in Canada he'd have dropped his gloves & layed a smackdown on the target of his anger. Purely emotional & thoughtless reaction, sick & tired of being bullied. Lost his mind in the heat of the moment and turned A.N.I.M.A.L. Viscous. So what? He didnt kill anyone. These were two very different Worlds colliding. Soviets outraged by the Canadians tactics. Worst thing you can do is kick someone with your skate or use your stick on them like a Lance, Doublehanders like Clarkie and a bunch of the rest of them. Russian was pushed over the edge.

It wasnt in the Soviets DNA, wasnt part of their game to target a top player for the opposition & deliberately, maliciously & recklessly hit them with intent to injure. Wasnt until they were on the receiving end of Team Canadas' abuse in 72 that they woke up to the realities of Canadian hockey and a rude awakening at that. I have often thought that it must have been a terrible disappointment to them. Here were these Supermen they'd heard so much about, must have been at first very nervous & intimidated by the lot of them. Yet they played their game, disciplined, cycle hockey. Caught the Canadians out of shape & out of breath who resorted to clutch and grab. Not all of them of course but it only takes a few to wreak havoc. Canada played desperate, the Soviets were a work of art, beautiful masterpiece. I personally couldnt stand watching what some of the Canadians were obviously up to & doing & as I said earlier, didnt even bother watching games 3-6. Made my blood boil.

You may have a hard time wrapping your head around it Zine, but the way they played to me at that time here in Canada when I myself was playing Junior was acceptable on Canadian or American ice, but I did hold them to a higher standard in playing the Soviets and railed against the dirt they were dishing. I realize that may seem hypocritical, that its ok to play that way in North America but its not cool to play that way in international competition but it was an attitude and opinion shared by many on this side of the pond. I didnt feel "shame" watching Team Canada but pride in that for most of them they were doing their best & played it clean. Had a Team USSR player taken out a Canadian on orders or even just Freelancing with viscous Crosscheck, Spear or whatever Id have merely chalked it up to "well, thats hockey".

Id seen it happen dozens upon dozens of times watching, playing the game myself. Guy carted off on a stretcher or limping off the ice, into the dressing room & done or given an injection and frozen, stitched up or whatever, sent out again. I got kicked in the back of the leg a few times as goalie in scrambles, cut for a lot of stitches. Couple of times Im sure it was deliberate. And thats just the way it was. Total War. You played for keeps & you played to win and if that meant going Criminal you did so. I dont know why this concept is so hard to understand, grasp. Its not shinny. Its not a friendly (a concept I dont even understand, how can your opponent be a "friendly" in hockey?- anathema to competition, some late 17th Century Croquet term). So no Zine, I wouldnt be sitting here 41yrs later railing against some Soviet player for breaking his stick across a Team Canada players ankles and putting him out of the series. Casualty of War. Bring in a new trooper. No one is indispensable.

Disagree.

If Clarke's actions were 'not outside the norm', there should be hundreds of examples (in the NHL alone) of players, circa '72, swinging their sticks like baseball bats with the sole attempt to injure. But there's not, not even close.


Forcing an opponent to 'pay the price' was part of the game. A punch, elbow, slash, discreet spear, tap to the ankle, riding someone through the boards - ok, I agree, it's playing for keeps.
However, injuring an opponent by means of a wind up golfing swing was never part of the hockey canon, is/was 100% outside the hockey code, and was never the norm.

And it's telling that Bobby Clarke (one of the dirtiest hit and run experts in the history of hockey) carried out the deed.
"Bobby Clarke is the only player Ferguson could have said that to" - Ron Ellis.

 

[Sentinel]

.... I guess I should be offended but no. Read the above Sentinel. Then get back ta me.

Everything else is just what Zine says. Clarke went way beyond whatever crazy Code existed in the minds of hockey players at the time.

BTW, can you please explain to me how is kicking a person more viscous than spearing, slashing, and highsticking him? I never understood the subtle distinction.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Code

The Code was and is dissuasive. It kept players from crossing the line with little deviation - Wayne Maki / Ted Green. So asking for an exhaustive list of example just illustrates a lack of familiarity with The Code. The Code also worked because the on ice, coaches and management were in tune and governed the game accordingly. Players or other participants not in tune with the code, were quickly removed from a team or a league in North America.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Kicking

I did read the above, and it's still an exercise in inconsistency. As if you kept jumping on and off your computer in middle of your post, and your son wrote parts of it.

Everything else is just what Zine says. Clarke went way beyond whatever crazy Code existed in the minds of hockey players at the time.

BTW, can you please explain to me how is kicking a person more viscous than spearing, slashing, and highsticking him? I never understood the subtle distinction.

Spearing, slashing and highsticking are all part of legal hockey plays until they are deemed by circumstances to be unnecessary, excessive or dangerous. These circumstances are clearly defined in the rule book.

Kicking is only acceptable in very limited circumstances when the puck is played.

Prime example would be the penalty for tripping if the stick is used to commit the foul. There is not specific tripping motion with the stick. Just a spearing or slashing motion that trips the opposing player.

Slew footing which involves a kicking motion is penalized differently. Intent to injure with suspensions, etc.

 

[Sentinel]

I meant "vicious," of course. Damn Autocorrect!

Seriously? The rule book defines slashing as "acceptable"? Was Clarke's slash also in "the book"? Or should he have been disqualified for the remainder of the series?

 

[Killion]

The Code was and is dissuasive. ... Players or other participants not in tune with the code, were quickly removed from a team or a league in North America.

Indeed, and though very few written copies of The Code actually exist, I just happen to have one borrowed from DownGoesBrown & will share some of the basic tenets though its contents are far more expansive than included here-in;

Weight Classes

All players shall be divided into the following Weight Classes;

*Heavyweight
*Cruiserweight
*Middleweight
*Lightweight
*Doug Weight

Choosing an Opponent

The Code dictates that all players should stay within their Weight Classes whenever possible. For example a Heavyweight may only fight;

*Another Heavyweight
*A Cruiserweight who has instigated a confrontation
*A Lightweight who has attempted to injure a team mate
*An Overweight Flyers Fan who has fallen into the Penalty Box

Rules of Engagement

Any of the following phrases when spoken to an opponent will be considered an invitation to fight;

*Lets go
*Drop the gloves
*Would you like to hear a detailed rundown of my hfBoards All Time Draft picks?
*Whoooa, uh oh, this is "Canada's Team"?
*I dunno Colton, to be honest I find your musings on twitter both juvenile & desperate

When to Fight

It is considered appropriate to fight when;

*You have lost the momentum in the game
*An opponent has committed an act for which immediate retribution is required
*While sitting on the bench, you suddenly realize you havent been mentioned on Coachs Corner in like, forever
*Brendan Shanahan emailed you telling you to knock it off... better destroy the email

When Not to Fight

*The Coach has given you specific instructions not to
*Late in a close game when an Instigator Penalty could result in a PP
*When your opponents is not expecting it... like while he's listening to the National Anthem

Punishable Acts

Any of the following acts shall be deemed in violation of The Code and deserving an immediate punch in the face;

*Shooting the puck towards the net or at another player after a whistle
*Spraying snow on the goalie when he's smothered the puck
*Kicking, Spearing, Swinging your stick recklessly
*Attempting that cheap breakaway move from NHL 94
*Being Matt Cooke

Removal of Equipment

If in the moments leading up to a fight your opponent;

*Removes his gloves, you must do same
*Removes his helmet & visor, you must do same
*Removes his left elbow pad, optional
*Removes his jersey & pants; you should consider the very distinct possibility that your not in a fight at all but have accidentally wandered into Patrick Kanes limo parked in the concourse at United Center

When the Fight is Over

*When the Linesmen & Refs' make their 1st moves to intervene
*When one or both players fall to the ice
*When you hear your opponents trainer asking you to hold off on whaling on his guy for a few sec's while they load him onto the backboard & stretcher....

and so on & so forth...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes it Does

I meant "vicious," of course. Damn Autocorrect!

Seriously? The rule book defines slashing as "acceptable"? Was Clarke's slash also in "the book"? Or should he have been disqualified for the remainder of the series?

Yes it does in the context of knocking the puck of a players stick with reasonable arc and force.

 

[Killion]

Was Clarke's slash also in "the book"? Or should he have been disqualified for the remainder of the series?

Yep. In "the book of Dirty Tricks" and one with quite the infamous history in North American hockey. Just the way it was Sentinel. Clarke was the exception to the rule, most if not all of the members of Team Canada with the exception of Clarke would never have crossed that line but there were and still are 1000's who would. A certain "breed" of player, and their not confined to just North American & Canadian circles. Finn's, Czech's, Russians, Slovaks, you name it.

Bobby received a Minor and a Major for that two hander, and ya, had I been an Official, wouldve barred him from playing in the remaining games as well. No place for that in hockey but it happened & happens still with far too sickening frequency. Some players, be it on order from the Bench (which btw Clarke denies or "doesnt remember" Fergie telling him while looking at Kharlamov "that guy could use a tap on the ankles") or just Free-lancing, maybe totally losing it, well, happens. You have to put it all into context, of the times, that game & series.

Team Canada had lost Game 5 (5-4) after blowing 3-0 & 4-1 leads. Game 6 no scoring in the 1st period, Liapkin putting the USSR up with a goal early in the 2nd followed by an explosion of 3 goals by Team Canada over the span of 1:23 seconds shortly thereafter. Yakushev scoring late in the period to make it 3-2, nothing in the 3rd. Team Canada received 31 minutes in PM's, playing shorthanded for 17 minutes throughout the game, while the Soviets received a grand total of 4 minutes in penalties under the grossly incompetent gaze's of Kompalla & Baader. "The Slash" taking place in the 2nd...

Bobby Clarke was excoriated by Paul Henderson years later however at the time it was the turning point in the series, and when Clarke called him on it, as in "why didnt you say something in 72 if you so objected"? (or words to that affect); Henderson then retracting his statements & apologizing. Kharlamov as you know missed Game 7 & was ineffectual in Game 8 but for one golden opportunity that he blew. Hockey is the ultimate team sport and when one loses their top player, a supposed "game changer" then others are expected to step it up. What happened happened. Henderson was no Superstar in the NHL yet he was the game changer for Team Canada scoring & or assisting on critical goals. Clarkes slash on Kharlamov was a series changer, the pin upon which Team Canada spun & completely turned the tide on the Soviets. Losing wasnt an option and like it or not, such practices though rare common enough in Canada, the US, elite amateur through pro. Most teams having one or more Bobby Clarke types on their rosters.

 

[cam042686]

1. 'Heat of the moment'? Unlike the other dirty plays, reactions and tactics employed by both sides in the series (i.e. Mikhailov kick, etc.), Clarke's slash was a premeditated attack, ordered from the bench, with the sole intent of removing Soviets best player.

2. Canadians would no doubt view such an act differently if roles were reversed.
Had Ragulin (on premeditated orders from Bobrov) intentionally and blatantly taken out Esposito, no amount of alcohol could make me believe the Canadian reaction would be "despicable play, but that's hockey, win at all costs, if you don't like it get off the ice." Not in a million years.

I agree 100%! Reverse the roles and Canadians would have gone nuts. And as I said earlier - that was a stupid thing to do as you are inviting retaliation. Clarke was basically saying "this is how we play - we don't care about the rules and go ahead and take one of our stars out. We don't care."

As well I also said this earlier. Clarke's actions cheapened our win. I wanted Team Canada to beat the best Soviet team fair and square. With Kharlamov out and then at maybe half speed the Soviets didn't have their best.

Finally in defense of Rick Ley. What he did was wrong - fighting is always wrong. But that truly was "heat of the moment." He momentarily "lost it." What Clarke did was cold blooded, premeditated, etc.

Craig Wallace

 

[Killion]

As well I also said this earlier. Clarke's actions cheapened our win. I wanted Team Canada to beat the best Soviet team fair and square. With Kharlamov out and then at maybe half speed the Soviets didn't have their best.

Indeed. However, perhaps semantics, but I personally dont feel Clarkes action "cheapened" our win in as much as it "cast a pall" over the entire series & served to underscore the oft times barbarous nature of the Canadian game at that time. Certainly it was premeditated & he should have been ejected for the remainder of the series & if the Ref's thought it was on order from the bench then done the same to Harry Sinden (even though it was reputedly Ferguson who ordered the hit the Head Coach is responsible for all actions of that kind, Buck Stops right there on his desk). That being said, in many a game there are "premeditated actions" that arent exactly torn from the pages of the Marquis of Queensburys' Rule Book and go completely un-noticed but for the soldier following orders & the Major behind the bench who gave the order. Old story. If the Cops didnt see you doing something, then it never happened. Right? Wheres your proof? A proofs a proof. A proof.. morally bankrupt of course, dastardly & underhanded but something that happened at all levels of hockey back then in Canada/US and with considerably frequency.

 

[brec7]

IMO, Clarke's slash greatly cheapens Canada's win.

 

[Zine]

Indeed. However, perhaps semantics, but I personally dont feel Clarkes action "cheapened" our win in as much as it "cast a pall" over the entire series & served to underscore the oft times barbarous nature of the Canadian game at that time. Certainly it was premeditated & he should have been ejected for the remainder of the series & if the Ref's thought it was on order from the bench then done the same to Harry Sinden (even though it was reputedly Ferguson who ordered the hit the Head Coach is responsible for all actions of that kind, Buck Stops right there on his desk). That being said, in many a game there are "premeditated actions" that arent exactly torn from the pages of the Marquis of Queensburys' Rule Book and go completely un-noticed but for the soldier following orders & the Major behind the bench who gave the order. Old story. If the Cops didnt see you doing something, then it never happened. Right? Wheres your proof? A proofs a proof. A proof.. morally bankrupt of course, dastardly & underhanded but something that happened at all levels of hockey back then in Canada/US and with considerably frequency.

I can't comment if it cheapened the win, that's an individual opinion.

Nonetheless, obviously the gravity of the Summit Series dictated that the ends justified the means for Canada; but so long as Canada won.
Clarke's actions were soooo outside the realm of what was normally acceptable that, had a Canadian been the recipient, in no parallel universe do the majority of Canadians refer to said action as a "necessary evil, it's war".

Example: 1987 WJC. Never is it remembered as "dirty Soviet left the bench first, but that's hockey, happens at all levels"; it's universally remembered as the WJC where Canada was blatantly cheated out of a medal by the Soviets. Now magnify that sentiment tenfold by putting it in context of the Summit Series.

 

[Sentinel]

Indeed, and though very few written copies of The Code actually exist, I just happen to have one borrowed from DownGoesBrown & will share some of the basic tenets though its contents are far more expansive than included here-in;

Great post!

Example: 1987 WJC. Never is it remembered as "dirty Soviet left the bench first, but that's hockey, happens at all levels"; it's universally remembered as the WJC where Canada was blatantly cheated out of a medal by the Soviets.

Really? I think it's the opposite. I don't remember Canada being cheated out a medal (how?). I just remember the "brawl."

 

[Killion]

I can't comment if it cheapened the win, that's an individual opinion.

Nonetheless, obviously the gravity of the Summit Series dictated that the ends justified the means for Canada; but so long as Canada won.
Clarke's actions were soooo outside the realm of what was normally acceptable that, had a Canadian been the recipient, in no parallel universe do the majority of Canadians refer to said action as a "necessary evil, it's war".

Example: 1987 WJC. Never is it remembered as "dirty Soviet left the bench first, but that's hockey, happens at all levels"; it's universally remembered as the WJC where Canada was blatantly cheated out of a medal by the Soviets. Now magnify that sentiment tenfold by putting it in context of the Summit Series.

Ok, Im not even sure what your alluding to pursuant to that disgraceful display in 1987. That was just "junk hockey". Totally pathetic. Not even worth dignifying with discussion.... as for "the ends justifying the means" & Summit 72, I lay both the credit for conception & the staging of the event along with all the blame for Canada icing an out of shape, disparate & desperate crew of Lumberjacks as ever hit the ice, pathetically Managed & Coached at the doorstep of one R. Alan Eagleson. Not only did Canadian hockey fans get gypped but so too did the Soviets. It could have been so much more. Ive thought much about that series in subsequent years, and the question one really quite honestly one asks oneself is "who really won"? It magnified the flaws & faults in the Canadian game, the raw brutality of it all, a harbinger of things to come in the NHL with the Flyers ascendant, a style of play, a philosophy of "win at all costs" that many, myself included found/find still rather abhorrent. Overboard. Beyond the pale. My sport had been hijacked by terrorists in the executive suites, by greedy owners & agents. The Soviet team on the other hand, and literally from Tretiak on out, works of art. They played the game the way it should be played. I dont think the USSR "lost" the series, I think they won it and made a point, made a noise that still echo's to this day. Theres more to what went down than the final scores, what was seen on the scoreboard. Way more.

 

[cam042686]

IMO, Clarke's slash greatly cheapens Canada's win.

I agree here 100%! It gave the Soviets an excuse if they chose to use it - "you intentionally injured one of our stars who you really feared."

As a Canadian I wanted to beat them "fair and square." Give them no excuses. And Clarke took that away from me and many like me.

Craig Wallace

 

[cam042686]

Just wondering - my book sales for this series has taken off. Has there been a great new interest in this series?

Craig Wallace

 

[Back in Black]

I just watched game 5 today. The Lost Game!!! You only get to see the second half of period 2, but a really good Intermission regarding Canada playing in the 1976 Olympics and the complete third period.

Better than nothing finding this game to really complete my set.

 

[cam042686]

I just watched game 5 today. The Lost Game!!! You only get to see the second half of period 2, but a really good Intermission regarding Canada playing in the 1976 Olympics and the complete third period.

Better than nothing finding this game to really complete my set.

I was able to get that partial game as well.

It's too bad Team Canada came out so flat in that game. If Gerry Cheevers hadn't played one of the best games a Canadian goalie ever played internationally, the score could have been 9-2. The only Canadians who played well that night were Cheevers and the line of Gordie Howe, Ralph Backstrom and Mark Howe. They were dangerous every shift. The rest of the team simply didn't show up.

Craig Wallace

 

[Back in Black]

I was able to get that partial game as well.

It's too bad Team Canada came out so flat in that game. If Gerry Cheevers hadn't played one of the best games a Canadian goalie ever played internationally, the score could have been 9-2.

Agreed.

Still enjoy watching those 2 Summit Series the odd time, evan after all these years!

Still wish Hull & Orr played in the '72 Series, but either way, we still won!

 

[cam042686]

Agreed.

Still enjoy watching those 2 Summit Series the odd time, evan after all these years!

Still wish Hull & Orr played in the '72 Series, but either way, we still won!

The WHA asked Orr to play in 1974. It is interesting to imagine the difference he may have made for Team Canada in 1974.

Craig Wallace

 

[Back in Black]

The WHA asked Orr to play in 1974. It is interesting to imagine the difference he may have made for Team Canada in 1974.

Craig Wallace

Really? Can't see the Bruins letting him go play for the WHA. Interesting fact, I did not know.