the summit series always blows my mind.  it was definitely important for canada in terms of maintaining superiority, a loss would’ve been crushing. 

on the topic of democracy vs communism as explained through hockey: this has always really bothered me. 

the summit series and the miracle game always get thrown together as these grandiose sporting victories and metaphors for victories over communism and the soviet system.  the miracle game probably is at the forefront of this, while the summit series is generally viewed as more of a victory for canada’s hockey supremacy, but nonetheless a victory over democracy.

my problem with this is how often this cultural impact is discussed, this grand sweeping victory that proved democracy was greater and hockey was a metaphor for the cold war. 

im not a communist sympathizer or whatever, but if you take your american/canadian flag glasses off for a minute and look at the situation…the soviet union freaking cleaned up in hockey for a long time.  i understand the miracle game’s importance because of the underdog story, and i get that canada’s best players didn’t play in the olympics, but they did in the world championships and boy did they clean up. 

so many writers love to go on this whole schtick about “us vs them” and if you do that, you look like a freaking idiot because they demolished “us” pretty much always.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 03/06/10 at 11:42 PM ET

edit:  this guy.  idiot.

screw the world championships.  freaking amateurs.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 03/06/10 at 11:45 PM ET

Was the summitt series the one where a canadian took out the soviets best player with a cheap play?

As far as “Miracle” is concerned, it was hockeys elite (who haven’t lost in how many games?) against a bunch of college kids. As far as a feel good story goes, that was THE. FEEL. GOOD. STORY. I don’t think it had anything to do with politics.

Posted by different name on 03/07/10 at 01:05 AM ET

Nothing compares to Lake Placid, 1980.

Why on earth is it a major event if a heavily-favored team (Canada) beats a team, in OT, that few people thought even had a chance at Bronze (USA)?

Yes, it was great for US TV, but let’s be realistic here.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 03/07/10 at 01:36 AM ET

But all the sports had political overtones in that time, Boo - on both sides, because the Soviets certainly used sports victories as proof of the superiority of their political and economic system.  Every single competition had those strong overtones; sports, literature, music, not just things that might at least logically reflect some aspect of politics such as science and industry.

If it wasn’t for the Soviets launching satellites, the US would have never in a thousand years gotten the approval to launch the moon program.  Now from several decades later on it’s perfectly clear that scientific research is a field worth spending money on because of all the advances that have come out of it and the incredible return on investment, but at the time there was a lot less interest in scientific research as something to be supported by federal funds.  The money went to the military and industry, but not to any new technologies or research.

The “ping-pong diplomacy” with China was similar.  The loud nationalism makes me a little queasy now, so I understand your point - but at the time competition through sports or music was a much safer alternative than open military confrontation.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/07/10 at 01:36 AM ET

Baroque , you’re so right.

Vancouver was great, no matter who won ...

...but let’s get a grip here.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 03/07/10 at 01:38 AM ET

just seems ridiculous since they mopped the floor with most of the rest of the world.  even if it had those overtones back then, now, they seem irrelevant to what was actually going on. 

i for one loved the soviet style of play, the pure soviet way, not the quasi whatever it is that russia does now.  quintets and what not.  its a shame you don’t really see it anymore.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 03/07/10 at 04:28 AM ET

just seems ridiculous since they mopped the floor with most of the rest of the world.

The Soviets mopped the floor by pitting “amateurs” against amateurs in international competition. The summit series was important because it was Canadian pros against Russian “amateurs.”

Still, for my money it has nothing—nothing—on the miracle on ice, where the amateurs actually beat the “amateurs.”

Posted by steve on 03/07/10 at 05:01 AM ET

Oh, and ditto on what you said about those 5-man units.

Posted by steve on 03/07/10 at 05:02 AM ET

The Gold medal game was THE GAME. 28 Million Americans watched it. LIVE. That’s almost 10% of the population of America. Which is unprecendented in hockey history south of the border.

Up to 28 Million Canadians watched that game. Almost 80% of their population watched the game at some point. Think about that…

Nobody watched the other games.

The other games might have had political ramifications and poetic metaphors and maybe moments of grace, but in terms of visceral, immediate impact. The 2010 Gold medal game shook the World.

Senior Russian officials lost their jobs because of this tournament.

We now know that North American hockey (at least on the small rink), is the superior brand of hockey.

And Canada is still the team to beat.

Posted by blammo from Vancouver, BC on 03/07/10 at 06:19 AM ET

1980 USA vs Soviet Union was THE GAME in the United States. More people watched that game and it was on tape delay. As for what was Canada’s greatest game…..who cares. 1981 Canada Cup….USSR 6 Canada 0…...was pretty good!!!

Posted by kevin from boston on 03/07/10 at 06:30 AM ET

Posted by blammo from Vancouver, BC on 03/07/10 at 06:19 AM ET

The problem, from the NHL’s viewpoint, is how many of those people (particularly in the US) are going to switch from Olympic hockey to watching NHL hockey?  If it’s a similar situation to the World Cup, where a lot of people care about soccer at the highest level every few years and it might as well not even exist the rest of the time, then it’s just a minor interest blip with no lasting effect.

And it’s too hard to define “North American hockey,” because not even a lot of NHL teams play the same kind of game that Canada and the US were both able to play because most of them have far less talent and have to play a more patient, trapping game waiting for opponents to make mistakes since they don’t have the depth of talent that both those teams have.

Sure it was a great game, but it’s already being stepped on by concerns about the Olympics four years from now and what will happen there, and it’s already faded right out of the consciousness of many of the people in the US as they turn their minds to spring training baseball and college basketball and other concerns of spring.

The only way to determine how much of a long-term impact it had is wait about ten years and see how many people remember it and how many hockey players talk about being inspired by that game when they were kids.

(And go back a couple decades and firing wouldn’t have been the result - several high officials and possibly their families would have just kind of disappeared from their apartments and workplaces, and no one would mention them any more.  With the expectations the Russians had coming in, and how far short they fell, any country would have had a good argument to make for firing the people in charge of the program.  Nothing exceptional or noteworthy, really.)

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/07/10 at 07:31 AM ET

And it’s too hard to define “North American hockey,”

Agreed. The swiss forechecked like crazy, battled on the boards and hit everything that moved, which aren’t really hallmarks of “european” hockey as it’s usually thought of.

The Russians, though, they played like every negative stereotype I can think of.

Posted by steve on 03/07/10 at 07:49 AM ET