Your thoughts on the '72 Summit Series "deserters"

[mcphee]

It's true that the kid shouldn't have come across as so dismissive. On the other hand, he does have *something* of a point. The previous staff of The Hockey News used to cannonize the Summit Series ad infinatum. Then the Nagano hotel room trashing would be inserted into articles at practically every available opportunity. This probably wasn't uncommon throughout Canadian sports media. To further illustrate the point: my father, a naturalized American, visited his Canadian relatives, after the Lake Placid Olympics. He asked what everybody thought of Team USA. He said that you could have heard a pin drop.

To put matters into perspective, yes, the '72 Series was hockey history and Canadian history, as has already been stated. Is it the greatest moment in hockey history? That's a matter of some debate. The '80 Olympics (with a bunch of college kids, compared with most of the finest NHLers) were certainly the greatest upset, and with all the other implications, it clearly became something more. Certainly, all of this was captured perfectly in the movie, "Miracle." The Nagano room-trashing incident got blown out of all proportion to make Canadians feel better about getting stoned by Dominik Hasek. (Notice the complaints that have finally subsided about the selection of players for the shootout. As if Wayne Gretzky could've fooled Hasek at that time.)

BB, I don't think it can be argued that the series was the greatest hockey ever played. I think that the series galvanized the country more than any other sports event. The idea that we could be beaten at a game that we considered ours was inconceivable to Canadians. Esp. considering the world that we lived in then. Canadians knew that we had no chance at the Olympics, sending amateurs against pros, but no one believed that the NHL could be challenged by these teams. Obviously, we were all wrong, hence the drama. The 80 or 60 Olympics is a more compelling story, like you say, except for the national identity tied in with hockey in Canada. No one old enough to watch, missed the game nor forgets where they were that afternoon. My brother still is nervous around me since I nearly killed him when I threw my Mom's ottoman in the air. I agree that from a hockey standpoint, it can be overrated, not from a national one though. One thing you can't overrate is that it started to combine the hockey cultures and styles.

 

[Chili]

The Summit Series obviously means more to Canadians than anyone else in the hockey world (especially those of us old enough to appreciate it back then).

But it also had a significant influence on the game afterwards. I can remember thinking at the time that it would be great to have a tournament with the best hockey playing nations represented with their best players and that came four years later with the Canada Cup. I believe it also influenced training methods. I remember seeing film clips of the Soviets off ice training. Their fitness level during the tournament certainly did't go unnoticed.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

BB, I don't think it can be argued that the series was the greatest hockey ever played. I think that the series galvanized the country more than any other sports event. The idea that we could be beaten at a game that we considered ours was inconceivable to Canadians. Esp. considering the world that we lived in then. Canadians knew that we had no chance at the Olympics, sending amateurs against pros, but no one believed that the NHL could be challenged by these teams. Obviously, we were all wrong, hence the drama. The 80 or 60 Olympics is a more compelling story, like you say, except for the national identity tied in with hockey in Canada. No one old enough to watch, missed the game nor forgets where they were that afternoon. My brother still is nervous around me since I nearly killed him when I threw my Mom's ottoman in the air. I agree that from a hockey standpoint, it can be overrated, not from a national one though. One thing you can't overrate is that it started to combine the hockey cultures and styles.

Great point, mcphee. The measure of signifigance for an event isn't necessarily directly tied to the quality of the play. I watched the 72 series as a 2 year old, so my memories are pretty blurry, but watching as an adult I find the hockey emotional and exciting regardless of arguments that can be made about its quality.. Certainly I think it is difficult for a Canadian of any age to argue that the series is insignifigant to the culture of Canadian hockey..

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

anyway, now that the 30 year old libellers have gone to sleep:

Could you please post without insulting others who were here enjoying this forum long before you came along?? Again, I appreciate your interest and am flattered, but really am not interested in pursuing anything more than friendship with you. Please direct your attention in a more productive fashion.

 

[Everest]

The Summit Series will forever be frothing on the sands of past genres. Its an old relic that the tide can't rip from the shoreline...an eyesore,but I reminder of the way they used to float;all the same.

 

[jekoh]

I want to explain further to those who are not familiar with the situation in the 1964 Olympics.
(...)
under the established rules, Russia was first, Sweden was second and Canada was third.
(...)
Now, all this is well documented and the facts are not in dispute.

Yes, they are in dispute, at least that's what I understand from this post : http://www.internationalhockeygang.org/forum/showpost.php?p=21748&postcount=11

 

[ClassicHockey]

Interesting article and it has a different (European view).

My statement that the rules for the tie breakers for the WC were changed by Bunny Ahearne and that is not in dispute - even the article says that:

"Bunny Ahearne rigged the rules alright"

The writer blames the CBC reporter for continuing the fight but he is really a messenger. In doing research for the 'Hockey-A People's History' series, there was a producer (Terry Walker) who saw that the IIHF website said Canada finished 3rd but weren't awarded medals, then the CBC newsman (Tom Harrington) reported it on the National News.

What the writer in that article posted here doesn't know is that it was the players from the 1964 team that persisted in obtaining the bronze Olympic medals and the CBC reporter was only the messenger.

How do I know? Because I'm involved in the series and have been updated by various members of the 1964 team. They have a lot of ammunition to continue their fight but like the article says, reversing the decision in 1964 may open up other claims. What does that say about the history of the way the IIHF was run over the years? Says volumes to me. "Odd decisions"? Yes, that is a polite way of saying it.

And further to his comment on Canada as a 'slow starter', he misses the point. The teams, according to the Canadian players were encouraged not to run up scores on the weaker teams during the regular part of the tournament so that the teams would not be embarrassed and also to play with 'sportsmanship'. That's what they were told. And those 'minor victories' by Canada were the result. After all, the Canadian players were told that the results did not carry into to the medal rounds as tie breakers.

Interesting article but its written from the 'outside' without some of the 'inside' knowledge that the players and officials have given.

Having said all that, it still is a complicated situation. My whole point is that in the 60's, prior to the 1972 Series, Canada had felt that they were continuously getting shafted by backroom politics and biased refereeing in International hockey.

Can you imagine that happening today? Calling a meeting to change the rules to screw a country out of a medal? That's the way it was back then and no wonder the IIHF doesn't want to set a precedent and bring more skeletons out of the closet. Interesting. 'Odd decisions'. I wonder what they are afraid of. Very interesting.

Yes, they are in dispute, at least that's what I understand from this post : http://www.internationalhockeygang.org/forum/showpost.php?p=21748&postcount=11

 

[ClassicHockey]

Interesting post but that's the first I've heard about a link between the U.S. team trashing the hotel rooms and the Canadians feeling better. My personal opinion is that there has never been such a link and it really doesn't make much sense. But I respect Badger Bob's thoughts.

People in Canada cared about the series in 1972 - they showed great passion and Canadians still remember where they were when Henderson scored the winning goal. The Nagano incident is something most people have forgotten about - it was really nothing - had absolutely no significance at all. I forgot about it minutes after I read about it.

It's true that the kid shouldn't have come across as so dismissive. On the other hand, he does have *something* of a point. The previous staff of The Hockey News used to cannonize the Summit Series ad infinatum. Then the Nagano hotel room trashing would be inserted into articles at practically every available opportunity. This probably wasn't uncommon throughout Canadian sports media. To further illustrate the point: my father, a naturalized American, visited his Canadian relatives, after the Lake Placid Olympics. He asked what everybody thought of Team USA. He said that you could have heard a pin drop.

To put matters into perspective, yes, the '72 Series was hockey history and Canadian history, as has already been stated. Is it the greatest moment in hockey history? That's a matter of some debate. The '80 Olympics (with a bunch of college kids, compared with most of the finest NHLers) were certainly the greatest upset, and with all the other implications, it clearly became something more. Certainly, all of this was captured perfectly in the movie, "Miracle." The Nagano room-trashing incident got blown out of all proportion to make Canadians feel better about getting stoned by Dominik Hasek. (Notice the complaints that have finally subsided about the selection of players for the shootout. As if Wayne Gretzky could've fooled Hasek at that time.)

 

[ClassicHockey]

McPhee, Chiilli, Bucky and the others - great posts and there isn't much to add. There is great historic significance from the series in 1972 and its still being reexamined. There is almost a whole episode in the 'People's History' series about 1972 and a movie that is being shot now about the series. I'd say that there is still a lot of interest in what happened in 1972. It must have been an historic event to still have people commenting on it today (Everest included).

Great point, mcphee. The measure of signifigance for an event isn't necessarily directly tied to the quality of the play. I watched the 72 series as a 2 year old, so my memories are pretty blurry, but watching as an adult I find the hockey emotional and exciting regardless of arguments that can be made about its quality.. Certainly I think it is difficult for a Canadian of any age to argue that the series is insignifigant to the culture of Canadian hockey..

 

[jekoh]

My statement that the rules for the tie breakers for the WC were changed by Bunny Ahearne and that is not in dispute - even the article says that:

"Bunny Ahearne rigged the rules alright"

Your statement was with regard to the Olympics, not the WC.

And there was no "medal round", btw.

prior to the 1972 Series, Canada had felt that they were continuously getting shafted by backroom politics and biased refereeing in International hockey.

Can you imagine that happening today?Calling a meeting to change the rules to screw a country out of a medal?

I can imagine some Canadian fans feeling they are getting shafted in international hockey, and I can imagine Slovakia being screwed in the last two Olympics by a stupid format

 

[ClassicHockey]

Yes, I meant the WC, thanks.

People (including Canadians) get so wrapped up in their own perceived injustices but have a lack of knowledge of other countries issues. I certainly agree with Slovakia getting a raw deal and remember them having an unstable lineup (thanks to the NHL) for the 2002 Olympics.

Your statement was with regard to the Olympics, not the WC.

And there was no "medal round", btw.

I can imagine some Canadian fans feeling they are getting shafted in international hockey, and I can imagine Slovakia being screwed in the last two Olympics by a stupid format

 

[Injektilo]

ClassicHockey, could you tell us a little more about this Hockey: A People's History project? Like when it'll be aired, how many episodes, what it'll focus on, etc?

I tried googling it, but can't seem to find many details. From your talk about it, I'm really looking forward to it, i'll definitely be sure to tape it all.


As well, many thanks for your input on these forums, they're much appreciated. You have alot of great information that no one else seems to have... thanks for sharing it all with us, and please don't ever hesitate to continue doing so.

 

[ClassicHockey]

CBC TELEVISION AND RADIO-CANADA EMBARK ON EPIC

TEN-HOUR PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF HOCKEY

CBC Television and Société Radio-Canada are mobilizing to produce the most ambitious television documentary project since the nationally acclaimed millennium history of Canada, Canada: A People's History. This weekend, amidst Hockey Day in Canada celebrations, CBC Television announced the launch of production of a new ten-hour series titled HOCKEY: A PEOPLE'S HISTORY.

The new series, appearing in early 2006, will unfold the epic story of the game that shaped a national psyche. Like the celebrated History project, HOCKEY: A PEOPLE'S HISTORY will be a collaboration between the English and French networks, will generate a companion book, an in-depth website, home videos and educational materials, and will be shot on state-of-the-art wide-screen high definition cameras. It is the networks' premier HDTV collaboration.

"This is more than the story of a sport," said CBC Television's executive director of network programming, Slawko Klymkiw. "This is a story of a people, and it's one CBC and Radio-Canada are uniquely equipped to tell."

"Hockey is woven into the deepest fibre of our country," said Daniel Gourd, executive vice-president, television for Société Radio-Canada. "It carries our dreams and our ambitions. It is also the quintessential expression of Canada's English and French character."

The project reassembles the bilingual production structure created for Canada: A People's History, which aired on both CBC and Radio-Canada to record ratings in 2000 and 2001. The Hockey production team is lead by Mark Starowicz, Jean Pelletier and Susan Dando. Mark Starowicz is the creator of Canada: A People's History, The Journal and The Canadian Experience. Jean Pelletier is the director of special reports and documentaries for Télévision Radio-Canada. Susan Dando worked on The Journal, and is the creator of Life and Times and producer of Sisters in the Wilderness (airing Feb. 26 at 8 p.m.).

The group has wanted for years to tell the story of hockey in a way that is not limited to a history of a professional league. "This is a tale of the human spirit, of miners turning into gladiators, a story of rogues and roughnecks, pirates and lords, dreamers and champions," said Starowicz. "It's got everything-the dynamics of language, cultures, regions and class-and ultimately, it seizes the national soul. This is an epic tale, and we can't wait to tell it."

Camera teams have already begun filming at community and national events. HOCKEY: A PEOPLE'S HISTORY will air on CBC and Radio-Canada in January 2006.

 

[ClassicHockey]

CLASSIC 1972 CANADA-RUSSIA HOCKEY SUMMIT SERIES BECOMES A FOUR-HOUR TV
MINISERIES ON CBC TELEVISION

Canada's dramatic hockey triumph over the Soviets in 1972 is being re-told
in a four-hour television miniseries that goes into production next month in
New Brunswick. CANADA RUSSIA 1972 (working title) is being produced by
Barrie Dunn and Mike Volpe of Summit Films of Halifax, and Timothy M. Hogan
and Rick LeGuerrier of Dream Street Pictures of Moncton, in association with
CBC Television.

Many Canadians vividly remember the 1972 Summit Series, and how Paul
Henderson scored in the dying minutes of the final game to give Canada its
greatest hockey victory ever. But, said Dunn, "few know the story behind the
great event-how the coaches struggled to get NHL stars to play as a team,
and how players like Phil Esposito, Ken Dryden and Bobby Clarke felt as
Canadian fans booed them when the team was down. This is a story that just
had to be told." Dunn has written the script along with Malcolm MacRury and
initiated the project more than three years ago, and then the CBC came on
board.

One of Canada's busiest television directors, TW Peacocke (Made In Canada,
The Eleventh Hour) will shoot the film over eight weeks in Fredericton and
Saint John. Post-production will take place in Halifax.

"There is a particular challenge in casting this film," said Hogan, "so many
of the actors also have to be able to play incredible hockey." To that end,
the producers are holding hockey tryouts in Fredericton and Halifax in the
coming weeks for non-lead roles. "Only those who've played competitive
hockey, junior or higher, will be considered," said Volpe, himself a former
NHL draft pick by the New York Islanders. The first round of hockey tryouts
and auditions will take place at the University of New Brunswick's Aitken
Centre in Fredericton, Wednesday, Feb. 16. Players are asked to call (506)
454-5544 or visit www.canadarussia72.com, for further details. Halifax
auditions will be announced later.

CANADA RUSSIA 1972 is funded by CBC Television, the Canadian Television
Fund, Telefilm Canada, Lions Gate Films and NB Film. "We're so pleased to be
able to shoot such an exciting story in New Brunswick," said LeGuerrier,
"and of course having the strong support of NB Film is a major bonus."

 

[ClassicHockey]

Thanks, I'll share what I can and its a matter of finding the time to read and post.

I posted the general descriptions of the People's History & 1972 Canada-Russia internal press releases separately.

The People's History series is a huge project and we've been working on it for a year now. The excutive producer wants to tell the history of the game from a different point of view - the 'people's' point of view. So, they are getting viewpoints from fans of the different eras and also writing the fan's experiences into the scripts (which are still changing). There will be some actual footage - some never shown before and there will be reenactments of some of the events.
The series won't please everyone but it depends on what the viewer expects out of it. Since there are 10 different producers and writers for each episode, the shows will look a little different.

The reenactments are as historically accurate as possible - I saw the filming of the early hockey events and the uniforms etc. look real authentic.

There is also a companion book based on the series, a children's book and there will be a DVD set as well. I've been busy lately trying to help edit the book and keep it as accurate as I can. Interesting that today in the meeting with the publisher, I found out that they did the Esposito book. We talked about the errors in that book and they said there were many more that they had to fix because of Espo's faulty memory.

I also got an update today about the 1964 medal fiasco from the players and Hockey Canada.

The series is due to air January 2006 which is about 6 months away, and right now, they are on schedule.

There is lots to tell so if you have any questions, just ask.

ClassicHockey, could you tell us a little more about this Hockey: A People's History project? Like when it'll be aired, how many episodes, what it'll focus on, etc?

I tried googling it, but can't seem to find many details. From your talk about it, I'm really looking forward to it, i'll definitely be sure to tape it all.


As well, many thanks for your input on these forums, they're much appreciated. You have alot of great information that no one else seems to have... thanks for sharing it all with us, and please don't ever hesitate to continue doing so.

 

[chooch*]

I see that Espo's 72 jersey was sold on juteaus.com for a princely sum. Didnt see Hadfields

 

[Zopust]

And Eagleson was always bluffing of course.

I was thinking about the comment about rather watching the Olympic hockey in '02 as opposed to the '72 series.

I suppose that if someone is relatively new to watching hockey (last 10-15 years), they might think that the style of hockey played now is what it should be.

But, the hockey today and including that '02 series has:

Obstruction - holding, hooking, interference
Neutral zone trap
goalies that look like they belong in lacrosse and blockinh the whole net
very few goals scored
endless (mindless) cycling
no goals scored off the rush
no goals scored from the face-off circle
no end to end rushes at all
no flow - just shoot it in and shoot it out.

You like to have all that in the game?

I could go on and on.

The 'modern' game also has:

fights that are mostly staged by the team's enforcers (goons)
most goals scored from scrambles in front of the net
hardly any open ice hits
all the players look the same with their helmets
no 50 goal scorers
no 100 point men

fans are tuning out by the thousands, especially in the States but in Canada too.

Even the archaic NHL & the usually disinterested NHLPA have realized that the game is unwatchable on most nights.

The game would be better served to have hockey the way it was played in the 70's.

The 70's also had entire lines of players who couldn't skate, the Broadstreet Bullies, no backchecking among forwards, terrible goaltenders...

I'm tired of this "golden age of hockey" crap. With the introduction of European players into the game, the skill level has never been higher, even with expansion. There is no room on a team for guys like Semenko or Rob Ray anymore. Even the enforcers (re: Brashear, Laracque) have to pull their weight on the ice as well. The players are bigger, faster and stronger, and they train 365 days a year. No more summers of gaining 40 pounds drinking beer and eating barbeque.

They used to use training camp to get into shape. Now you're expected to be in shape for training camp.

Goaltenders are much much better. Watching classic games is agonizing to watch when you see the number of bad goals. Goalies flailing around like idiots. I agree that the equipment has gotten out of hand, but goalies are much better trained and are more fit than they've ever been.

I've watched more than my fair share of classic games and I've been relatively disappointed. Some of the line matchups have such a discrepency in skill that it's almost embarassing. Watching Gretzky skate around a bunch of pylons isn't that exciting to me.

Nowadays, 3rd and 4th line players were league leading scorers in Junior, like Mike Peca and Kris Draper, they have offensive skills which they apply to defense, like speed, positioning and smarts.

To say that fans are tuning out is a gross misconception. For one, in the 70's, you had teams folding and moving all over the place. California Golden Seals? Atlanta Flames?

In traditional hockey markets, the game is fine. Most arenas are larger and obviously there is more money to be made because the salaries have never been higher. Obviously the CBA lockout is an adjustment required because the NHL expanded a little too quickly, too fast, and salaries exploded from a few owners who couldn't help themselves.

The fact that the worst team in the league attendence wise still averages 13,000 fans a game is pretty damned good. Hockey was and always will be a niche sport. Comparing it to football and baseball isn't fair.

 

[Trottier]

The 70's also had entire lines of players who couldn't skate, the Broadstreet Bullies, no backchecking among forwards, terrible goaltenders...

I'm tired of this "golden age of hockey" crap. With the introduction of European players into the game, the skill level has never been higher, even with expansion. There is no room on a team for guys like Semenko or Rob Ray anymore. Even the enforcers (re: Brashear, Laracque) have to pull their weight on the ice as well. The players are bigger, faster and stronger, and they train 365 days a year. No more summers of gaining 40 pounds drinking beer and eating barbeque.

They used to use training camp to get into shape. Now you're expected to be in shape for training camp.

Goaltenders are much much better. Watching classic games is agonizing to watch when you see the number of bad goals. Goalies flailing around like idiots. I agree that the equipment has gotten out of hand, but goalies are much better trained and are more fit than they've ever been.

I've watched more than my fair share of classic games and I've been relatively disappointed. Some of the line matchups have such a discrepency in skill that it's almost embarassing. Watching Gretzky skate around a bunch of pylons isn't that exciting to me.

Only thing worse than an old-timer who won't move forward with the times?

A newbie who has absolutely no respect for the greatness that came before him.

 

[ClassicHockey]

Zopust,

You completely don't understand the point.

You don't just 'watch' a hockey game with your eyes. There is more to it and unfortunately with the way hockey is played nowadays, you will never get to experience what hockey was like in the past and the way it should be played now.

Hockey is watched but also felt with your emotions and passion - cheering your own team but hating the opposition. In the 60's the players had a 'flair' about them - the characteristics were different among players. They skated, shot and played differently in their own 'style'. Now, the players are mostly the same size, they skate the same way and they shoot the same way and even can fight the same way. They all went to hockey schools and trained the same way. You can hardly tell the players apart on the ice. Faceless players playing a robotic system - very boring. The networks, the NHL, most fans - all recognize that - and you can't, I guess.

The beauty of the game in the 60's & 70's is that the players all had a unique story on how they made the NHL. They weren't technically as skilled as the players today but so what. The players today hardly get to show those skills anyways. The game is too stifling and boring. The players in the 60's & 70's varied in their size and skills - and that makes the game more interesting to watch. They also hated the opposition and that provides for far better competition than the game today.

You can't appreciate the old game because you can't feel the passion of watching the players and the feeling of the competition of the era. Playing against Russia in those days was more than a hockey game - they were the 'real' enemy.

The question is not which players and goalies were more skilled but what was the more interesting game to watch - Orr's end to end rushes, the young Oilers making fantastic plays for goals - that sort of thing. You actually prefer watching the trap and the shoot it in, shoot it out? If you do, then those networks in the states that won't touch hockey, would like you to stand up and be counted. There are just too few of you.

I can understand you watching a classic game and not think its interesting. But you don't understand yourself why. You only watch with your eyes and can't possibly know the emotions of how the game was played back then. Trust me, it was nothing like you can imagine unless you were a fan at the time.

Incidently, I would rather have bad goals scored than no goals scored. This game today needs some flow, end to end action and scoring. And you won't find many people who work in hockey or TV, that agree with your views.

The point is not if the players are 'better', its how the game is played on the ice. Its the competition and the passion. There is more to the game of hockey just 'looking' at it.

The 70's also had entire lines of players who couldn't skate, the Broadstreet Bullies, no backchecking among forwards, terrible goaltenders...

I'm tired of this "golden age of hockey" crap. With the introduction of European players into the game, the skill level has never been higher, even with expansion. There is no room on a team for guys like Semenko or Rob Ray anymore. Even the enforcers (re: Brashear, Laracque) have to pull their weight on the ice as well. The players are bigger, faster and stronger, and they train 365 days a year. No more summers of gaining 40 pounds drinking beer and eating barbeque.

They used to use training camp to get into shape. Now you're expected to be in shape for training camp.

Goaltenders are much much better. Watching classic games is agonizing to watch when you see the number of bad goals. Goalies flailing around like idiots. I agree that the equipment has gotten out of hand, but goalies are much better trained and are more fit than they've ever been.

I've watched more than my fair share of classic games and I've been relatively disappointed. Some of the line matchups have such a discrepency in skill that it's almost embarassing. Watching Gretzky skate around a bunch of pylons isn't that exciting to me.

Nowadays, 3rd and 4th line players were league leading scorers in Junior, like Mike Peca and Kris Draper, they have offensive skills which they apply to defense, like speed, positioning and smarts.

To say that fans are tuning out is a gross misconception. For one, in the 70's, you had teams folding and moving all over the place. California Golden Seals? Atlanta Flames?

In traditional hockey markets, the game is fine. Most arenas are larger and obviously there is more money to be made because the salaries have never been higher. Obviously the CBA lockout is an adjustment required because the NHL expanded a little too quickly, too fast, and salaries exploded from a few owners who couldn't help themselves.

The fact that the worst team in the league attendence wise still averages 13,000 fans a game is pretty damned good. Hockey was and always will be a niche sport. Comparing it to football and baseball isn't fair.

 

[chooch*]

The 70's also had entire lines of players who couldn't skate, the Broadstreet Bullies, no backchecking among forwards, terrible goaltenders....

you talk like those are a bad thing!

I'm tired of this "golden age of hockey" crap. With the introduction of European players into the game, the skill level has never been higher, even with expansion. There is no room on a team for guys like Semenko or Rob Ray anymore. Even the enforcers (re: Brashear, Laracque) have to pull their weight on the ice as well. The players are bigger, faster and stronger, and they train 365 days a year. No more summers of gaining 40 pounds drinking beer and eating barbeque.
....

skill level? when was the last time you saw a guy stickhandle?

They used to use training camp to get into shape. Now you're expected to be in shape for training camp.

Goaltenders are much much better. Watching classic games is agonizing to watch when you see the number of bad goals. Goalies flailing around like idiots. I agree that the equipment has gotten out of hand, but goalies are much better trained and are more fit than they've ever been.
....

i'd be interested to know which classic games you;ve watched?

start with the 75 new years eve game; go to 79 too many men game. if you still beleive what you write...

I've watched more than my fair share of classic games and I've been relatively disappointed. Some of the line matchups have such a discrepency in skill that it's almost embarassing. Watching Gretzky skate around a bunch of pylons isn't that exciting to me.

Nowadays, 3rd and 4th line players were league leading scorers in Junior, like Mike Peca and Kris Draper, they have offensive skills which they apply to defense, like speed, positioning and smarts.

To say that fans are tuning out is a gross misconception. For one, in the 70's, you had teams folding and moving all over the place. California Golden Seals? Atlanta Flames?
....

virtually everyone agrees that the game at the nhl level is a mess including bettman. Who are we to disagree?