Your thoughts on the '72 Summit Series "deserters"

[big_steve]

For somebody who doesn't care about 1972, you sure have your panties in a knot about something. You complain that Canada makes excuses, yet you go on to make excuses for Russia for something that happened 30 years ago. You claim that Canadians have no class, and then go onto imply most Canadians are "a-holes."

There are jackass fans on all sides, you seem to be representing your side well.

Senator, you got told!!!

Interesting discussion. Love ClassicHockey's input, seems like a very intelligent person, whomever it is.

 

[chooch*]

I was rereading Henk Hoppners Death of a Legend and Kharlamovs injury is not part of the game 6 reports and barely mentioned in G7 also.

The kicking incident with bergman and Mikhailov is well described. Bergman is said to be laughing it off after the game and TC is described as lucky that they got 5 minutes as Cournoyer also threw punches.

The look on Ragulins(?) face as Henderson and Yvan celebrate is frightening.

Classic book btw with great pics.

 

[ClassicHockey]

I'm not familiar with that book. Who is Henk Hoppners and how does he come by his info?

Bergman wasn't laughing after the game in the sense the incident was funny. He would have been shaking his head at the some of the worst violence ever on a hockey rink. What could be worse than kicking with skates on.

I guess the book didn't have a photo of Bergmans hockey socks that had the tears all the way to the shin pad from the blades of Mikhailov's skates.

I viewed this incident from a close-up ice level view that was captured by a Canadian filmmaker called Al Stewart who was in Moscow. It gives a different perspective on the incident. Mikhailov was one of the dirtier Russian players even before his kicking.

As for the Cournoyer punching, all I can say is I'll bet the author doesn't mention that Mikhailov should have gotten a 10-minute match penalty.

Anyways, tell me more about the book and its author. When was it published and where. There must also be a bio on the author.

I was rereading Henk Hoppners Death of a Legend and Kharlamovs injury is not part of the game 6 reports and barely mentioned in G7 also.

The kicking incident with bergman and Mikhailov is well described. Bergman is said to be laughing it off after the game and TC is described as lucky that they got 5 minutes as Cournoyer also threw punches.

The look on Ragulins(?) face as Henderson and Yvan celebrate is frightening.

Classic book btw with great pics.

 

[FrenchKheldar]

Great posting Classic Hockey, I'm a 25 year old Frenchie who really appreciated watching the Series on DVD and all the info you bring here is very valuable and put everything in perspective ! Thanks a lot !

 

[gary69]

I'm not familiar with that book. Who is Henk Hoppners and how does he come by his info?

Anyways, tell me more about the book and its author. When was it published and where. There must also be a bio on the author.

I'm not chooch and I don't have the book, but it's being sold at Amazon's (published 1972).

Guy named Henk William Hoppener seems to have been an "Executive Director of the Canadian Olympic Committee" from 1965 to 1969, if the info I found is correct, maybe this is the same person than the author.

 

[ClassicHockey]

Thanks for the info.

If its published in 1972 it's probably one of those quickie jobs and not very well thought out.

From the info that Chooch listed, I have a feeling that this book would not be the ideal reference for the series.

I think I'll look at it if the HHOF has it.

I'm not chooch and I don't have the book, but it's being sold at Amazon's (published 1972).

Guy named Henk William Hoppener seems to have been an "Executive Director of the Canadian Olympic Committee" from 1965 to 1969, if the info I found is correct, maybe this is the same person than the author.

 

[ClassicHockey]

Thanks, guys, I'm learning things as well. And, if you have any hockey history questions, let me know.

I want to explain further to those who are not familiar with the situation in the 1964 Olympics. I won't write all the details but just summarize.

Canada played Russia for the Gold Medal and lost by one goal.

Russia won the gold and there was a 3 way tie for second place and silver. Under the rules of the tournament, the tie breaker was goals scored from the games in the playoff rounds. So, under the established rules, Russia was first, Sweden was second and Canada was third. Czechoslovakia was fourth and were not to get a medal.
The Canadian players went back to their hotel, got dressed and returned to the arena for their bronze medals. The Czechs, of course, did not show up as they knew they were beat out because of the rules.

But what the teams didn't know was that Bunny Ahearne, who was the President of the IIHF got the countries representatives together in a hastily called meeting while the 3rd period of the gold medal game was on. He coerced them to change the tie breaking rules to make it 'goals for' for the entire tournament. That made the Czechs 3rd and Canada fourth.

When the Canadian team arrived at the rink, they were told they were not getting medals. Can you imagine the shock and disappointment to those young players of the Canadian National Team? The Czechs, of course, had not bothered showing up.

Now, all this is well documented and the facts are not in dispute. There was a protest from the Canadian representative in that meeting but the Eastern bloc teams voted together and the U.S. for some reason, went along with the farce.

This is the way that International hockey was run in the 60's. And, when Ahearne reneged on a deal to allow the use of some professional players in the 1970 World Championships (with the approval of the Russians), Canada had enough of all the crap and withdrew entirely from International hockey.

When Canada came back for the 1972 series, all this prior stuff was still fresh in their minds. Its easy to criticize Canada's action in the 1972 series but you have to know the mindset that they were working with. There was a lot of distrust. And the Russians were easy to distrust because of their methods. In some of the film that was never shown in game 8, a couple of members of the Canadian team had to be physically restrained from attacking the Russian hockey officials. It was that tense.

All this will be covered in the 'People's History' of hockey that is being produced right now.

Great posting Classic Hockey, I'm a 25 year old Frenchie who really appreciated watching the Series on DVD and all the info you bring here is very valuable and put everything in perspective ! Thanks a lot !

 

[Everest]

I'm sick of the 72 Summit Series,its overrated and the fact people are still blathering about it tells me that too many of todays hockey fans are older people who are hanging onto the past.
It gets replayed a half dozen times in Canada every year,and to be honest...its booooring ugly hockey.
I would like to see replays of the 2002 Olympics,now that was good hockey

 

[canucksfan]

I'm sick of the 72 Summit Series,its overrated and the fact people are still blathering about it tells me that too many of todays hockey fans are older people who are hanging onto the past.
It gets replayed a half dozen times in Canada every year,and to be honest...its booooring ugly hockey.
I would like to see replays of the 2002 Olympics,now that was good hockey

I disagree. The Summit Series is the best hockey series ever. IMO it was better than the 87 Canada Cup. Granted, the 87 Canada Cup was better hockey it lacked the intensity and the emotion the Summit Series had. Game 8 of the Summit Series was one of the best hockey games played. I don't understand how you can say that it was boring ugly hockey. The last four games of the series was decided by one goal.

As for the 2002 Olympics from a Canadian stand point the game against Sweden, Belarus and Germany were all boring. Thats half the games that weren't exciting.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I'm sick of the 72 Summit Series,its overrated and the fact people are still blathering about it tells me that too many of todays hockey fans are older people who are hanging onto the past.
It gets replayed a half dozen times in Canada every year,and to be honest...its booooring ugly hockey.
I would like to see replays of the 2002 Olympics,now that was good hockey

No, kidding, what the hell are these guys doing talking about something like this in a forum called "the history of hockey"???

I mean really, talking about anything that happened more than five years ago is stupid.

Thanks for bringing this to light.

 

[Everest]

No, kidding, what the hell are these guys doing talking about something like this in a forum called "the history of hockey"???

I mean really, talking about anything that happened more than five years ago is stupid.

Thanks for bringing this to light.

Guy Lafleur? Cheesy.
Paul Henderson? Postage Stamp material,and thats great.
...I'm gald everyone knows about the series. Do I ever want to see it again? Nope.

 

[Everest]

I disagree. The Summit Series is the best hockey series ever. IMO it was better than the 87 Canada Cup. Granted, the 87 Canada Cup was better hockey it lacked the intensity and the emotion the Summit Series had. Game 8 of the Summit Series was one of the best hockey games played. I don't understand how you can say that it was boring ugly hockey. The last four games of the series was decided by one goal.

As for the 2002 Olympics from a Canadian stand point the game against Sweden, Belarus and Germany were all boring. Thats half the games that weren't exciting.

For me (30 yrs old)the 87' C.C. was the best.
66/99 together beats all the fervor of the 72' series,hands down (for me).
The worst thing about the 72 series is that Kharlamov was injured (during the series I think??) and that takes a lot out of it for me.
BTW: I watched every game that was televised in 02' and I loved every second of it.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Guy Lafleur? Cheesy.
Paul Henderson? Postage Stamp material,and thats great.
...I'm gald everyone knows about the series. Do I ever want to see it again? Nope.

Guy Lafleur?? How dare you insult the man I represent so proudly and bravely in my avatar?? The man who brought smoking to legions of youngsters.. rogaine to hordes of bald people and viagara to needy seniors.. For shame, for shame..

 

[Everest]

Guy Lafleur?? How dare you insult the man I represent so proudly and bravely in my avatar?? The man who brought smoking to legions of youngsters.. rogaine to hordes of bald people and viagara to needy seniors.. For shame, for shame..

He's just a little too much for me. Your right,it is very brave to slather your avatar with "that"

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

He's just a little too much for me. Your right,it is very brave to slather your avatar with "that"

You better watch yourself, the "flower children" frequent this forum and they know where you live

 

[Everest]

You better watch yourself, the "flower children" frequent this forum and they know where you live

I'm not scared of the Lafleurians.
Remember when Guy was playing with the Nords?(I think)...and he tried to wrap the puck around his back,in the corner of the d-zone...and Cam Neely absolutely slaughtered him...like,honest to god,the funniest/nastiest thing that ever I did see.
I'll bet there were some tears from the Flowerchildren

 

[chooch*]

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

From Death of Legend - Game 7:

"Its the first time I've ever been kicked during a hockey game, the first time....two, maybe three times I've got a welt on my leg where his skate came through the shin pad and after that, all I wanted was a piece of him. Any part of him would do. I couldnt believe it. "Is this happening to me?" I said to myself.

Bergman was chuckling about the incident after the game, but it was no laughing matter when it happened, Bergman fought to clear of Mikhailov and then before he could disentangle himself, here comes Yvan Cournoyer, pumping punches at the Soviet forward. Bergman gets clear and throws a punch...."

by Red Fisher

Pre tourney stuff:

"Eagleson is wearing so many hats that when he catches a plane, which is more or less constantly these days, he has to stop and figure out which outfit to bill the ticket to. Some of his less fervent admirers have accused him of a conflict of interest. After one such suggestion from a Hockey Canada director, Eagleson tendered his resignation - something he does fairly regularly. Its was of course not accepted."

by ALexander Ross

 

[ClassicHockey]

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.

Pre tourney stuff:

"Eagleson is wearing so many hats that when he catches a plane, which is more or less constantly these days, he has to stop and figure out which outfit to bill the ticket to. Some of his less fervent admirers have accused him of a conflict of interest. After one such suggestion from a Hockey Canada director, Eagleson tendered his resignation - something he does fairly regularly. Its was of course not accepted."

by ALexander Ross

 

[chooch*]

the game is unwatchable on most nights.

CH: Couldnt agree with you more. My friends and I would watch a classic game on Saturday night over the real stuff anyday.

Somewhere along the way, Bettmen decided that a close game is more exciting for the home team fans or tv viewers (like the NBA) and decided the best way to achieve a close game is to keep the goals down. So a 1-0 game is the greatest thing for a fan in his eyes.

 

[Chili]

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

Amen. Great rivalries, great action, flow, passing. Back then hockey people controled the game. The shift of priority from a game to a business made the on ice product a secondary consideration.

It's more than scoring as well. When I started following the game in the 60's there was not much more scoring than now. The 1967 Leafs cup team played a defensive style. But you had guys like Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich who could score from anywhere. Fleet of foot players who could beat the defence, great passing plays and when Orr came into the league defencemen began to focus more on offence. The majority of goals now seem to come from a small area around the net after scrambles.

The entertainment value is not the same for me. Give me Hull or Lafleur coming down the wing and letting her fly or any of the great rivalry games in the old barns like Chicago Stadium, Boston Garden, The Forum, MLG, the Spectrum, etc. over what I see today.

 

[mcphee]

I'm not scared of the Lafleurians.
Remember when Guy was playing with the Nords?(I think)...and he tried to wrap the puck around his back,in the corner of the d-zone...and Cam Neely absolutely slaughtered him...like,honest to god,the funniest/nastiest thing that ever I did see.
I'll bet there were some tears from the Flowerchildren

Guess you haven't seen much then. So, the league's dominant power forward can take a 39 year old guy 1 on 1. Wow. You know, you really have to give up that 02 thing, it's old news, get with the times. Long live the cycle.

 

[doc5hole]

If they hadn't put so many players on the team none of this would've happened and Canada might have done better in the series.

They might have done worse, too. Sinden loved Don Awrey's straught-away speed in the NHL game but quickly found out that the Soviets' style made his head spin. If he didn't have other, more improvisational players to go to, this would have been a rout. And I loved Don Awrey on the Bruins. He wasn't unlike many modern defensemen whose success depends on the style of game. He probably would be a very good player today because of the mircocoaching involved. In his day, all players were expected to improvise on the ice.

 

[mcphee]

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.

I agree to the extent that the personality is gone from the game. I don't think the lack of 50 goal scorers is due to a lack of skill. There is a pretty high skill rate in the game, it's finding a way to showcase the talent that seems to be lacking. I'm not sure that clutching and grabbing is the problem either, the Leafs won 3 straight in the early 60's playing that style. You think today's coaches are conservative, remember Imlach ? I think the league's stuck in a vicious circle. For a coach, like a player, the NHL is the brass ring. The pay scale is enough that they're desperate to get then keep their jobs. Defense wins in the short term. Few coaches are secure enough to think long term. Extend that to the type of player who sees that 3-4 years in the league can set him up for life, and will do anything asked of him to stay in the league. In the NFL, if defenses can stifle the offense, they tinker to balance the game and neutralize coaching. The NHL has done nothing to neutralize coaching, and I honestly don't know what they can do. Smaller rosters may help, not having a 4th line, forces longer shifts, more mistakes, more puck control, I don't know. Less players whose chief attribute is that they're considered 'coachable'. I watched the classic games too this winter, and frankly was surprised by the way, you'd see so many low percentage plays. Offensive players would be creative and try stuff, if it doesn't work out, trade chances, and try something else. The individual nature of players would come out with more space, and the less frenetic pace. I think the rule changes with regards to goalie eqmt. and some increased zone passing rules will help, but until they can neutralize coaching somehow, things are pretty bland.

 

[Badger Bob]

My thoughts? My thoughts are that it was over 32 and a half years ago, and before I was concieved. My thoughts are people should give it a rest.

Actually its called: hockey history.

Do you possess such a self-centered disregard and disrespect for all that came before you?

Yep, we should all give it a rest. It's sooooo yesterday. Better to hyperventilate over what color underwear Sidney Crosby is wearing today.

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.)

 

[doc5hole]

Thanks, Classic Hockey, this has been a nice surprise.
I read a book by Harry Sinden on this subject, sort of his journal remformulated for simple consumption, but it's nice to know there are many more sources.
I'm glad you got into the state of the game part of it when a poster began debating the merits of the '72 series vs. the 2002 Olympics.
As an American nearing 50, I'm a rare bird in that most of my peers were very passionate followers of the Bruins back in '72 but nowadays can't name five players on the team. They've checked out.
Hockey is still a huge part of New England culture, but not of the sports fan psyche.
The best illustration of this is a 30-something ex-college player who was a big time goal scorer at Division 3 level and, last year, when he went to a game, said the following: "I was blown away for the first five minutes, the way they were skating and moving the puck. Then, the next five minutes, it hit me 'They're doing the same exact thing. Do they know how to do anything else out there?"
Improvisation in hockey used to be the domain of the players themselves, and the richness of invention, whether it was on the part of individuals or in the clash of styles between NHL teams or, in this case, far away countries, gave the game an element that is missing even with all of today's athletic skill.
It seems to me that hockey needs to do like pro tennis and get the coaches off the bench during games.
It's impossible for players to be creative when they have neither the responsiblity nor the license to improvise.
I don't care where the lines are on the ice, what the rules are or how well they enforce them. Coaching is the micro-monster that threads its way through every prescribed change and makes it impossible to recover the dynamic that we all miss.
Yes on any change that makes the game look more like it did back when I latched onto it (i.e. smaller pads, etc.), but if they don't address the in-game puppeteer, then they're just spinning their wheels.