Mens International Ice Hockey results- best on best

[RED ARMY EAST]

Results from best on best International tournaments since 1976.
USSR,Czech's,USA,Sweden have won one each, while Canada has won 8 times.

1976 Canada Cup-CAN
1981 Canada Cup-USSR
1984 Canada Cup-CAN
1987 Canada Cup-CAN
1991 Canada Cup-CAN
1996 World Cup-USA
1998 Olympics Nagano-CZE
2002 Olympics Salt Lake-CAN
2004 World Cup-CAN
2006 Olympics Torino-SWE
2010 Olympics Van-CAN
2014 Olympics Sochi-CAN

Click to read more...

 

[robwangjing]

Is this a post to glorify Canada or bash on Russia?

Your first statement "Russia has won just one" and you later say "The Czech's,USA,Sweden have won one each".

One Russian medal is not equal to one Czech?

Also I wonder, why leave out all other Olympics? The UK(GB?) had a gold medal which should be mentioned in my opinion. And Canada would still have the most gold medals, so if you want to glorify your country the point is still there.

Or have I missed something about previous Olympics that they didn't contain the best players?

 

[thomasincanada]

.

Or have I missed something about previous Olympics that they didn't contain the best players?

Before 1998 NHL players weren't allowed in the olympics.. so it wasn't a true best on best.

 

[robwangjing]

Ah I see, I didn't really know that, hockey is still pretty new to me. And I also suppose that Canada Cup had the best players since it's mentioned.

Learn something new every day.

BTW: Thanks for editing your post RAE.

 

[rj]

The 2005 World Championships should be included since the players that competed there had no conflicts preventing them from competing due to the NHL lockout, so the players in that tournament were best available.

It was won by the Czech Republic.

 

[Forsberg21Sakic19]

Interesting to think about. In assessing best on best we generally have looked at 96' World Cup of Hockey and thereafter, which gives a much more International impression. But if you include the prior Canada Cups it does skew the numbers.

Any talk about Canada being a step above and everyone playing for second, however, is completely false. There are 6 teams that can legitimately win a championship in any best on best tournament. Strong goaltending or system play occasionally pushes two more (Slovakia and Switzerland) into contention for a medal (or top 3 finish depending on tournament).

What hockey needs at this point is for continued development in Switzerland, re-organizing and renewed efforts at development in Czech Republic and Slovkia, and the further emergence of international contenders. The most notable of these to me is Germany. It would be a huge victory for ice hockey to be able to add a nation of 80m people to the list. In addition nations like Denmark and Belarus need to continue to grow.

Ideally in 20 years we would have 10 teams that can win a gold with another 4-6 that could contend any tournament. This statement allows for tournament by tournament cycles though as the smaller nations cannot consistently field championship caliber teams (per what we see with the World Cup in soccer).

 

[thomasincanada]

Interesting to think about. In assessing best on best we generally have looked at 96' World Cup of Hockey and thereafter, which gives a much more International impression. But if you include the prior Canada Cups it does skew the numbers.

Any talk about Canada being a step above and everyone playing for second, however, is completely false. There are 6 teams that can legitimately win a championship in any best on best tournament. Strong goaltending or system play occasionally pushes two more (Slovakia and Switzerland) into contention for a medal (or top 3 finish depending on tournament).

Canada *is* a step above everyone else and the evidence is 3 wins in the last 4 olympics. That does *not* mean that the other countries can't win, however. They can and will win some as well. If someone said Canada was way ahead that would be false.

A step above means a little bit ahead. That's what we are because of depth. Sweden lost some top players and was devastated. We lost two of the top 10 forwards in the NHL and didn't miss a beat.

 

[rj]

^ I've always believed rugby union and ice hockey internationally are very comparable. The Canada of rugby union are the All Blacks of New Zealand. We should look at it from the perspective of anytime Canada lose a game or come close versus clearly inferior opposition, it's a failure of the national team. The Latvia game for Team Canada was a complete failure on their part (sorry, that's part of being the best). The All Blacks when they play the bottom teams in tournaments don't win by only 3 points. But Canada still won the gold.

Something I put together awhile ago for rugby fans.

The International Rugby Union Fan's Guide to International Ice Hockey:

New Zealand are Canada - spiritual guardians of the game, plenty of arrogance from their fans and provides some character to a population usually described as genteel and nice, had a long drought in winning anything (Canada went 50 years between Olympic gold medals and is 21 years and counting since a Stanley Cup, New Zealand went 24 years between Rugby World Cups), don't handle defeat well, who's the New Zealand rugby version of Don Cherry? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raEgZDBk-ys

Australia are the USA - usually the big brother to their neighbor in all sports but in this sport they uniquely take the junior seat at the table, game only popular in certain segments of the country, usually just happy if they can upset their neighbors to see their fans react angrily but every now and then can take the top prize

England are Russia - think they're the center of the world in the sport, not those filthy degenerates from the other side of the planet that call themselves the spiritual guardians of the game, flash a lot of money around, a decline of sorts has set in after a long period of great success, holding the next true World Championship (2015 in rugby in England, the 2014 Olympics in hockey in Russia)

Ireland are Germany - one poster once here: "this comparison would be rancid if (the Irish) understood"

Wales are Finland - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfJqcOp7QIs , can never win on the big stage globally so they make up for it by acting like beating their neighbors is the most awesomest thing ever, all their best players have left their domestic league, have a natural inferiority complex to their neighbors borne out of being subjugated for centuries that they use their national team as a surrogate for

Argentina are Switzerland - a team that's there underneath the top teams, most respect them and know they have to try to beat them but you'd never look at them and think they're going to win the whole thing, most people categorize their style of play as quite dull and if you beat them it'll usually be a low-scoring affair

South Africa are Sweden - have their ups and downs but have won world titles often enough to be a largely successful country in the game historically outside of the top two, produce a lot of top players that go play in other countries' leagues

France are the Czech Republic - they're there, and are considered top tier; historically the biggest thorn on the continent to the major team on their continent in England/Russia; the French have lots of histrionics and politics in their game, and Petr Nedved making the 2014 Czech Olympic roster speaks to politics at least

Samoa are Kazakhstan - can be quite the bruisers although they seldom beat the top boys and are benefactors of almost their whole playing base playing and coming from New Zealand/Russia

Scotland are Slovakia - one of the top tier historically but just barely as the likes of Argentina/Switzerland have probably passed them by, probably on the downslide but can still give a few teams fits

USA are Norway - a country you'd think would be better at the sport but for some reason few people play the game there as the game has a reputation amongst the general population of being psychotic

Namibia are Ukraine - had a short period of success after independence from the mother country but not long after it went downhill

Georgia are Latvia - only been independent for about 20 years, usually just making up the numbers at the bottom end but have passionate fans, DEATH TO RUSSIA!!!

Looking forward to the Worlds. After all, Canada are the best. Their C-team ought to be able to defeat everyone with how good they are.

 

[thomasincanada]

The 2005 World Championships should be included since the players that competed there had no conflicts preventing them from competing due to the NHL lockout, so the players in that tournament were best available.

It was won by the Czech Republic.

Tough to count that if very few countries actually sent their best. I could host a hockey tournament at my place in the summer and invite every Country. It doesn't count as a best on best if they don't show, though.

World Championships are never, and likely never will be, best on best. It's just something for Russia to win now and then to feel better about themselves.

 

[Forsberg21Sakic19]

thomasincanada - I will agree that Canada is a step ahead because of the depth, but remember that international tournaments are best on best, not necessarily a reflection of the depth of a program (Slovakia being a good example).

rj - Love the comparison with Rugby. Hadn't thought of it that way but being a Swede and having a soft spot in my heart for the Springboks I certainly don't mind! Looking forward to watching the next Rugby World Cup.

 

[rj]

Tough to count that if very few countries actually sent their best. I could host a hockey tournament at my place in the summer and invite every Country. It doesn't count as a best on best if they don't show, though.

World Championships are never, and likely never will be, best on best. It's just something for Russia to win now and then to feel better about themselves.

You didn't read the post at all did you?

There was no NHL playoffs that year, so every country was capable of putting together their best roster as they deemed it that offseason, i.e. it was best-on-best.

 

[thomasincanada]

You didn't read the post at all did you?

There was no NHL playoffs that year, so every country was capable of putting together their best roster as they deemed it that offseason, i.e. it was best-on-best.

I did read the post. And I responded that because most of the best players didn't go, it's not best on best. The World Championships isn't, and never will be, a best on best. Not enough countries care about it.

Let me know if there is anything else you need clarification on.

 

[thomasincanada]

thomasincanada - I will agree that Canada is a step ahead because of the depth, but remember that international tournaments are best on best, not necessarily a reflection of the depth of a program (Slovakia being a good example).

While I said Canada is a step ahead I will happily admit that good teams from other countries like Sweden, the US, Russia and Finland can and do beat us occasionally. There is certainly a lot of talent from all those countries.

 

[rj]

I did read the post. And I responded that because most of the best players didn't go, it's not best on best. The World Championships isn't, and never will be, a best on best. Not enough countries care about it.

Let me know if there is anything else you need clarification on.

By that measure, if the only country that cared about the Canada Cup was the Canadians, does it really count?

If you asked Americans what they cared more about: the 1980 Olympics or the 1981 Canada Cup, what do you think they're answering?

I'm being difficult by extrapolating on the holes in your logic. But no league was playing during the 2005 Worlds so there was no limitations on the roster of who was unavailable, so everyone was available to play. Some players that were better were overlooked because they hadn't played all year and were therefore worse players than the ones that were picked because they were out of shape. Therefore, that was a best-on-best for 2005. If you carry a different opinion, power to you, but according to my definition, the 2005 Worlds was a best-on-best.

 

[thomasincanada]

By that measure, if the only country that cared about the Canada Cup was the Canadians, does it really count?

If you asked Americans what they cared more about: the 1980 Olympics or the 1981 Canada Cup, what do you think they're answering?

I'm being difficult by extrapolating on the holes in your logic.

You're being difficult but you're making a somewhat valid point. Believe it or not I'm one of the few Canadians that is willing to accept that the Canada Cups were arguably not "best on best".

You could truly argue the only fair and true best on bests have been the last 5 Olympics.. and I wouldn't necessarily argue.

Either way, we can agree to disagree since you will never convince me that the 2005 WC was best on best.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Over time I have come to the conclusion that what tournaments get termed 'best on best' is generally based more so on a person's own personal biases than using a consistent criteria.

 

[RED ARMY EAST]

Canada Cup

By that measure, if the only country that cared about the Canada Cup was the Canadians, does it really count?

If you asked Americans what they cared more about: the 1980 Olympics or the 1981 Canada Cup, what do you think they're answering?

I'm being difficult by extrapolating on the holes in your logic. But no league was playing during the 2005 Worlds so there was no limitations on the roster of who was unavailable, so everyone was available to play. Some players that were better were overlooked because they hadn't played all year and were therefore worse players than the ones that were picked because they were out of shape. Therefore, that was a best-on-best for 2005. If you carry a different opinion, power to you, but according to my definition, the 2005 Worlds was a best-on-best.

This was a " best on best" tournament, created due to the fact that the World Championships were held in April/May and all countries, except East bloc countries couldn't send there best players.
USA,Canada,Sweden,Finland were all unable to use NHL players who were still in the NHL playoffs.
USSR and CSSR were sending National teams that consisted of their best players.
So the tournament took place in September in Canada and the US on North American sized ice, unlike the Worlds, that were always played on big ice in Europe, except for 2008 in Halifax when for the first time it was played on NA ice.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

By that measure, if the only country that cared about the Canada Cup was the Canadians, does it really count?

If you asked Americans what they cared more about: the 1980 Olympics or the 1981 Canada Cup, what do you think they're answering?

I'm being difficult by extrapolating on the holes in your logic. But no league was playing during the 2005 Worlds so there was no limitations on the roster of who was unavailable, so everyone was available to play. Some players that were better were overlooked because they hadn't played all year and were therefore worse players than the ones that were picked because they were out of shape. Therefore, that was a best-on-best for 2005. If you carry a different opinion, power to you, but according to my definition, the 2005 Worlds was a best-on-best.

Everyone is free to define best on best however they like but for me too many players declined to participate in 2005 for it to make the list, it certainly stands out amongst world championships though.

 

[Yakushev72]

Results from best on best International tournaments since 1976.
USSR,Czech's,USA,Sweden have won one each, while Canada has won 8 times.

1976 Canada Cup-CAN
1981 Canada Cup-USSR
1984 Canada Cup-CAN
1987 Canada Cup-CAN
1991 Canada Cup-CAN
1996 World Cup-USA
1998 Olympics Nagano-CZE
2002 Olympics Salt Lake-CAN
2004 World Cup-CAN
2006 Olympics Torino-SWE
2010 Olympics Van-CAN
2014 Olympics Sochi-CAN

Delete the Canada Cups and World Cups because they are not best on best. These are privately owned invitational tournaments that do not conform to the norms of international competition, and are not sanctioned as World Championships.

 

[modofan]

Everyone is free to define best on best however they like but for me too many players declined to participate in 2005 for it to make the list, it certainly stands out amongst world championships though.

World Cup (and it's previous form Canada Cup) was, and still is, a freak tournament. It was organized by NHL, a professional league, and it all smells money grabbing. And any setup where an not-so-open-organizer can earn more money on certain outcomes are suspect. (In any sport I can add.)

I, and a lot with me, don't consider World Cup as a best-on-best tournament. The tournament simply isn't credible. It's more like an NHL all-star-game-kind-of-tournament. And I don't care about all-star games.

World Cup shouldn't be on the list. Only IIHF tournaments are credible and that's my definition.

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

World Cup (and it's previous form Canada Cup) was, and still is, a freak tournament. It was organized by NHL, a professional league, and it all smells money grabbing. And any setup where an not-so-open-organizer can earn more money on certain outcomes are suspect. (In any sport I can add.)

I, and a lot with me, don't consider World Cup as a best-on-best tournament. The tournament simply isn't credible. It's more like an NHL all-star-game-kind-of-tournament. And I don't care about all-star games.

World Cup shouldn't be on the list. Only IIHF tournaments are credible and that's my definition.

Of course it's your definition. The IIHF has been a European House League since its founding. Remember Bunny Ahearne? I'm sure you do. The IIHF was explicitly created as a means of combating the Canadian predominance in the sport and Ahearne, whose corruption was rampant, was the very man who swindled Canadian amateurs out of an Olympic gold in 1936 and out of an Olympic bronze in 1964. No organization that featured Ahearne and Sabetzki for decades, or a dentist from Switzerland today, has any more credibility than the National Hockey League. This is the same governing federation that stood idly by for years and years while the soviets sent elite professionals up against college kids. Naturally, modofan, anything with the IIHF imprimatur is okay in your eyes because it's "your" federation. Conversely, anything that levels the playing field by removing the conspicuous double standards the soviets (and a few other European countries) thrived under, is "bad" because that helps Canada (and, by extension, the United States). C'mon, man. If you're going to be biased, show more subtlety than that.

Here's the shorthand for Canadian posters: it's only a legit best-on-best competition if Canada doesn't win. Which means only 5 of the last 13 best on best competitions since 1976 have been "legit"

 

[WarriorofTime]

I would say just look at the NHL Olympics. World Cup not so sure, Canada Cup is a definite no.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Of course it's your definition. The IIHF has been a European House League since its founding. Remember Bunny Ahearne? I'm sure you do. The IIHF was explicitly created as a means of combating the Canadian predominance in the sport and Ahearne, whose corruption was rampant, was the very man who swindled Canadian amateurs out of an Olympic gold in 1936 and out of an Olympic bronze in 1964. No organization that featured Ahearne and Sabetzki for decades, or a dentist from Switzerland today, has any more credibility than the National Hockey League. This is the same governing federation that stood idly by for years and years while the soviets sent elite professionals up against college kids. Naturally, modofan, anything with the IIHF imprimatur is okay in your eyes because it's "your" federation. Conversely, anything that levels the playing field by removing the conspicuous double standards the soviets (and a few other European countries) thrived under, is "bad" because that helps Canada (and, by extension, the United States). C'mon, man. If you're going to be biased, show more subtlety than that.

Here's the shorthand for Canadian posters: it's only a legit best-on-best competition if Canada doesn't win. Which means only 5 of the last 13 best on best competitions since 1976 have been "legit"

But Alan Eagleson (Founder of the Canada Cup) = Great Guy?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Yes, those Canadians back in the 70's were an evil bunch. How dare they organize a tournament where all the best players could compete.

I love how people who are fans of the current best on best hockey at the Olympics somehow find fault in Canadians for organizing a tournament that their top players could attend in a time when the IIHF and IOC outright banned them from even setting foot on the ice at one of their "international" tournaments. People who disrespect the Canada Cup only do so because they are jealous of our achievements.

 

[that is unfortunate]

So basically Canada can only win when they have by FAR the best team?