Most Important Wins by Country

[espo*]

Canada wasn't a powerhouse in the olympics. Bronze in '68, silver in 60 were the only medals for them in the previous 20 years. Canada wasn't on the radar.

I don't think anyone said they were.

And it does'nt matter either,because the olympics were not where the rubber met the road in international hockey at that time and we all know why. Does'nt take anything away from what that team accomplished at the time,it just did'nt mean they were at Canada's or the Soviets level. let's not get carried away here,i know it's a sacred cow down there but that win did'nt mean American hockey was on equal footing with Canada and the Soviet Union yet.

A series of say,90 games between the Soviets and that U.S team would have ended with the Soviets winning,what.............80+ of them?. Most likely that result give or take a few.

It was'nt dubbed the miracle on ice for nothing.

 

[Hasbro]

I don't think anyone said they were.

And it does'nt matter either,because the olympics were not where the rubber met the road in international hockey at that time and we all know why. Does'nt take anything away from what that team accomplished at the time,it just did'nt mean they were at Canada's or the Soviets level. let's not get carried away here,i know it's a sacred cow down there but that win did'nt mean American hockey was on equal footing with Canada and the Soviet Union yet.

Who is, i'm contending with Canucksfan's assertion that this might as well be an exhibition because the best Candaians weren't involved.

 

[espo*]

Who is, i'm contending with Canucksfan's assertion that this might as well be an exhibition because the best Candaians weren't involved.

Agreed,that would'nt be accurate.

 

[canucksfan]

Who is, i'm contending with Canucksfan's assertion that this might as well be an exhibition because the best Candaians weren't involved.

I never said it was like an exhibition game. All I have been saying is that the US never beat the best players from other countries except for the Soviets. I, like a lot of people would agree that the Canada Cups and the World Cups during the 70's and 80's were a lot more credible than the Olympics.

 

[Hasbro]

I never said it was like an exhibition game. All I have been saying is that the US never beat the best players from other countries except for the Soviets.

and the Czechs, Finns and Swedes.

If it were Canada that won in 80 we still wouldn't be hearing the end of it.

I, like a lot of people would agree that the Canada Cups and the World Cups during the 70's and 80's were a lot more credible than the Olympics.

Yeah when the Canadian squads didn't include WHA players.

What you are arguing is akin to saying roger Moore was the best Bond.

 

[canucksfan]

And niether did the US for that matter, however the Soviets did. Like I said hockey is bigger than Canada.

If Canada sent a team the US would've probably beat them. The Olympics and the World Championships aren't credible. For most countries their best hockey players didn't participate in either competition. The Canada Cups, during that time was the only best on best tournament.

 

[canucksfan]

and the Czechs, Finns and Swedes.

If it were Canada that won in 80 we still wouldn't be hearing the end of it.
Yeah when the Canadian squads didn't include WHA players.

What you are arguing is akin to saying roger Moore was the best Bond.

Sweden didn't have some of their best players. Salming and Nilsson didn't play for Sweden. Those two players right there are important for Sweden. I know the Americans didn't have their best players as well.

Canada did have WHA players in 76'. Only the Summit Series is where Canada didn't allow WHA players.

 

[Hasbro]

If Canada sent a team the US would've probably beat them.

Canada did send a team in 80, they went 3-2 and missed the medal round because they lost to Finland and the Soviets.

It's largely moot anyway as the USSR was a team able to beat the best any given night.

The Olympics and the World Championships aren't credible. For most countries their best hockey players didn't participate in either competition. The Canada Cups, during that time was the only best on best tournament.

With the ommision of the WHAers.

 

[canucksfan]

Canada did send a team in 80, they went 3-2 and missed the medal round because they lost to Finland and the Soviets.

It's largely moot anyway as the USSR was a team able to beat the best any given night.

With the ommision of the WHAers.

I meant if Canada played the US.

The only tournament where the WHA wasn't allowed to participate was the Summit Series.

 

[Hasbro]

I meant if Canada played the US.

Well the US beat both teams Canada lost to.

The only tournament where the WHA wasn't allowed to participate was the Summit Series.

Which you listed as Canada's most important victory. That and the Canadian team being out of shape and Clarke resorting to a cheap shot taints that accomplishment somewhat doesn't it?

 

[canucksfan]

Well the US beat both teams Canada lost to.

Which you listed as Canada's most important victory. That and the Canadian team being out of shape and Clarke resorting to a cheap shot taints that accomplishment somewhat doesn't it?

Ya I know and I said that the US would have probably beat Canada.

I don't see how the Summit Series has anything to do with the Americans. Hull was the only one that would have played. This isn't a debate about the Summit Series.

 

[Hasbro]

Ya I know and I said that the US would have probably beat Canada.

I don't see how the Summit Series has anything to do with the Americans. Hull was the only one that would have played. This isn't a debate about the Summit Series.

About as much as the Canadians have to do with the Miracle on Ice.

 

[canucksfan]

About as much as the Canadians have to do with the Miracle on Ice.

When I said Americans I meant what does the Summit Series have to do with the 80' olympics.

 

[Hasbro]

When I said Americans I meant what does the Summit Series have to do with the 80' olympics.

Comparing greatest national victories. Since the criteria is best on best.

And it's more impressive our underdog squad took down the best team in 80. Even more impressive than if we had sent our best players. And had a team of college players beat the Canadians in 96 it wouldn't have messured up to the Miracle.

 

[espo*]

Comparing greatest national victories. Since the criteria is best on best.

And it's more impressive our underdog squad took down the best team in 80. Even more impressive than if we had sent our best players. And had a team of college players beat the Canadians in 96 it wouldn't have messured up to the Miracle.

It would'nt have measured up due the political and social circumstances of the times but on a purely hockey level it would have for sure.A group of College players beating the best Canadian squad in 1996 would definately have been a miracle,it would have been even more so in 1980. It would not have gotten the press and accolades like beating the Soviet team did (being your arch enemy in the cold war) but on a hockey level it would have been every bit as miraculous.

 

[Hasbro]

It would'nt have measured up due the political and social circumstances of the times but on a purely hockey level it would have for sure.A group of College players beating the best Canadian squad in 1996 would definately have been a miracle,it would have been even more so in 1980. It would not have gotten the press and accolades like beating the Soviet team did (being your arch enemy in the cold war) but on a hockey level it would have been every bit as miraculous.

Yeah nothing short of devine intervetion can get CuJo to melt down in international play.

Hell this Swiss did it last year.

 

[espo*]

Yeah nothing short of devine intervetion can get CuJo to melt down in international play.

Hell this Swiss did it last year.

I don't understand, a cujo meltdown? the swiss? do you mean like Tretiak melting down in 80? and the Soviets actually losing to a completely inferior collection of college kids? i don't see the point.

the u.s beating Canada would have been a 'miracle" also. You are making the claim the U.S beating a Canadian national team of pros would'nt have been a big upset on the level of beating the Soviets? it would have been a huge upset of the first order.

 

[Hasbro]

I don't understand, a cujo meltdown? the swiss? do you mean like Tretiak melting down in 80? and the Soviets actually losing to a completely inferior collection of college kids? i don't see the point.

the u.s beating Canada would have been a 'miracle" also. You are making the claim the U.S beating a Canadian national team of pros would'nt have been a big upset on the level of beating the Soviets? it would have been a huge upset of the first order.

Yeah I think the Red Army team honnned to the verge of perfection was superior to a Canadian all star team with little cohesivesness and was missing the best goaltending available. Canada gets upset plenty on the international stage, I doubt the Vatican is taking notice.

If the US team sobbered up in 98 and won the gold it would pale in comparison to 80.

Had they won in Salt Lake it would meant less.

It's 80, 60 and a distant third to 96.

 

[espo*]

Yeah I think the Red Army team honnned to the verge of perfection was superior to a Canadian all star team with little cohesivesness and was missing the best goaltending available. Canada gets upset plenty on the international stage, I doubt the Vatican is taking notice.

If the US team sobbered up in 98 and won the gold it would pale in comparison to 80.

Had they won in Salt Lake it would meant less.

It's 80, 60 and a distant third to 96.

Canada has not gotten upset much on the international stage when it's gone with it's best players,no more then the Soviet Union i would suspect and certainly not in that time of hockey.Don't confuse even a rag-tag team of the best Canadian pros with olympic teams we used to send or any other team sent into international tournaments.When Canada went with it's best players in tournaments at that time they won more times then not (and that was against the Soviets and the best anyone else had to send) I can't recall Canada ever getting upset by the best U.S teams when we had our best players let alone the college variety,most times when we sent our best players they won and certainly comfortably beat the best U.S squads in those days. It's not like the Soviet Union was never upset in those days,Poland beat them,they were beaten by Sweden in the world championships,they lost games to other teams just in that time frame about as much as Canadian teams of their best players over all this time.

Yep,the Vatican would definately have taken notice if the U.S had beat Canada with their best pros in Lake Placid.You're totally deluding yourself if you think it would'nt have been classified a monumental upset because there is not even a question it would have been.How a serious hockey fan could think it would'nt have been is hard to believe.


Miracle on ice 2 without question.

So yeah,80 bigger then 96 without question.But The win in Lake Placid should'nt make you out of touch with hockey history and it's reality at the time,or now.

I totally agree that 80 was by far the biggest win in U.S hockey history (while disagreeing 60 is bigger then 96) but to say a win by U.S. college kids over the best Canadian pros (in any format) in 1980 would'nt have been a huge upset.......................that's crazy.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Well the US beat both teams Canada lost to.

Which you listed as Canada's most important victory. That and the Canadian team being out of shape and Clarke resorting to a cheap shot taints that accomplishment somewhat doesn't it?

And Clarke's shot to Kharlamov was the only cheap shot in that series. Right. There were cheap shots on both sides every game. Canada ran Tretiak in Vancouver. The Soviets were guilty of slew foots and plenty of stick work. Clarke's shot on Kharlamov gets vilified because a) the victim was the Soviets' star forward and b) the purpetrator was Bobby Clarke. If it's Ron Ellis on one of the Soviet third liners, nobody ever mentions it again.

There's no tainting in 1972. To march into Moscow, against an opponent that proved it was on a similar plateau, and win the last three games to win the series (including rally from a 5-3 deficit in the final period of the final game) is absolutely incredible. It's not like it was easy in Moscow - Canadian players would receive phone calls at all hours of the night.

That's what made 1972 the greatest event in hockey history - it was essentially the first best-on-best ever. It was a series, not a best-of-one, and it was played in both countries. There has never been hockey as intense, passionate or dramatic as 1972. And in the end, there has never been an event in hockey that changed the hockey landscape as much. The true impact of the Miracle on Ice is mostly contained to the U.S. It really didn't have much of a long-term impact in the USSR, or Finland, or Sweden.

Summit shattered the myth of outright Canadian hockey supremacy. Hell, Game 1 in Summit did that. The next seven games reinforced that reality. It was a wake-up call for Canada, it was a shining moment for the USSR (even in defeat) and it showed the rest of the world that Canada wasn't the only true hockey superpower.

 

[canucksfan]

Comparing greatest national victories. Since the criteria is best on best.

And it's more impressive our underdog squad took down the best team in 80. Even more impressive than if we had sent our best players. And had a team of college players beat the Canadians in 96 it wouldn't have messured up to the Miracle.

In 72' there were two great hockey nations, Canada and the Soviet Union. If there was a best on best tournament one of those teams would have won. You could see their dominace at the Canada Cups or the WJC. Only the U.S. has ever won a Canada Cup besides Canada and the Soviet Union.

It's the most important win, not the most impressive win.

 

[Hasbro]

Canada has not gotten upset much on the international stage when it's gone with it's best players,no more then the Soviet Union i would suspect and certainly not in that time of hockey.Don't confuse even a rag-tag team of the best Canadian pros with olympic teams we used to send or any other team sent into international tournaments.When Canada went with it's best players in tournaments at that time they won more times then not (and that was against the Soviets and the best anyone else had to send) I can't recall Canada ever getting upset by the best U.S teams when we had our best players let alone the college variety,most times when we sent our best players they won and certainly comfortably beat the best U.S squads in those days. It's not like the Soviet Union was never upset in those days,Poland beat them,they were beaten by Sweden in the world championships,they lost games to other teams just in that time frame about as much as Canadian teams of their best players over all this time.

The 80's era Canada cup teams, since the end of the cold war it's seemed the Canadian national team got too cronyistic. Things like Clarke appointing Lindros as Captian over Messier, Yzerman, Bourque et al.

The Swiss beat a simular quality team and I honestly think the 80 team is more talented than the Swiss 06 team, with the exception of goaltending (and this is skewwed by Craig's horrible NHL career.) The quality gap behind the Red Army was that much bigger.

Yep,the Vatican would definately have taken notice if the U.S had beat Canada with their best pros in Lake Placid.You're totally deluding yourself if you think it would'nt have been classified a monumental upset because there is not even a question it would have been.How a serious hockey fan could think it would'nt have been is hard to believe.

Of course, however the best Canadians weren't there and it doesn't tarnish that a bit because the US beat two comprable national teams and two very good ones. It would be one thing if the 80 team ran over world junior type teams, but the faced surperior

Miracle on ice 2 without question.

So yeah,80 bigger then 96 without question.But The win in Lake Placid should'nt make you out of touch with hockey history and it's reality at the time,or now.

I totally agree that 80 was by far the biggest win in U.S hockey history (while disagreeing 60 is bigger then 96) but to say a win by U.S. college kids over the best Canadian pros (in any format) in 1980 would'nt have been a huge upset.......................that's crazy.

 

[Hasbro]

And Clarke's shot to Kharlamov was the only cheap shot in that series. Right. There were cheap shots on both sides every game. Canada ran Tretiak in Vancouver. The Soviets were guilty of slew foots and plenty of stick work. Clarke's shot on Kharlamov gets vilified because a) the victim was the Soviets' star forward and b) the purpetrator was Bobby Clarke. If it's Ron Ellis on one of the Soviet third liners, nobody ever mentions it again.

There's no tainting in 1972. To march into Moscow, against an opponent that proved it was on a similar plateau, and win the last three games to win the series (including rally from a 5-3 deficit in the final period of the final game) is absolutely incredible. It's not like it was easy in Moscow - Canadian players would receive phone calls at all hours of the night.

You really think I believe the 72 victory was tainted?

That's what made 1972 the greatest event in hockey history - it was essentially the first best-on-best ever. It was a series, not a best-of-one, and it was played in both countries. There has never been hockey as intense, passionate or dramatic as 1972. And in the end, there has never been an event in hockey that changed the hockey landscape as much. The true impact of the Miracle on Ice is mostly contained to the U.S. It really didn't have much of a long-term impact in the USSR, or Finland, or Sweden.

Summit shattered the myth of outright Canadian hockey supremacy. Hell, Game 1 in Summit did that. The next seven games reinforced that reality. It was a wake-up call for Canada, it was a shining moment for the USSR (even in defeat) and it showed the rest of the world that Canada wasn't the only true hockey superpower.

Oh it's still going.

 

[God Bless Canada]

You really think I believe the 72 victory was tainted?

Oh it's still going.

Were you trying to be sarcastic earlier when you mentioned the tainted part? Because it sure didn't come across that way. Then again, sarcasm is never really good in a message board, unless you're one of those great posters (ClassicHockey, murray, etc.) who can pull it off.

I don't think there are any knowledgeable hockey fans out there who believe in outright Canadian supremacy. It's one thing to believe that Canada is the best hockey nation in the world, and to predict Canada to win. It's another thing to expect Canada to obliterate the competition in any best-on-best tournament we enter. That's not going to happen. Most Canadians now recognize that it's going to be a battle to win a gold at any of the big four tournaments - Olympics, World Cup, World Championship and World Juniors.

Sheer domination by Canada in a major international tournament has only happened once since I've been watching hockey - the 2004-05 WJC. That was due to three factors: a) the NHL lockout leaving Canada with the ability to ice its best lineup; b) the strength of Canada's 1985-born players (1985 might be the best year for Canadian talent since 1969, which produced Sakic, Turgeon, Shanahan, DesJardins and Blake, among others); and c) the lack of depth in 1985-born talent in the other hockey powers.

 

[Hasbro]

Were you trying to be sarcastic earlier when you mentioned the tainted part? Because it sure didn't come across that way. Then again, sarcasm is never really good in a message board, unless you're one of those great posters (ClassicHockey, murray, etc.) who can pull it off.

Yeah I'm surprised at how often I et taken literaly.

Anyway sarcastically aplying the same standard to another event.