WHC or WJHC, Eurofans only please

Since the answer is obvious with North Americans, I would like to pole the Europeans ONLY. This is not ment to vindicate anything, just want to know. Please, DO NOT vote if you are not a Euro fan. Thanks!

I didn't vote but I have to think most Euro nations will pick the WHC just because NHLers get to play in it and its a more even playing field (somewhat)

As a hockey fan, WJC games tend to be more entertaining. I was there when Finland won WJC on home ice. The Helsinki arena was sold out, it was a big sporting event, and a thrilling game with Hagman finally scoring. And everyone was happy we won. But would it have been WHC, the whole country would've gone nuts celebrating and Hagman would be a national hero.

That is the difference, WHC is the hockey event in Finland, for a month or so every spring this turns into hockey country. Even people who normally don't follow hockey are watching and talking about it, and when we play Sweden that is what everyone is watching. At the end of the day, we really don't care if it is the best NHL players or just euro league guys, it is the event itself and the history of it. I have never ever seen this country celebrate like after 95 WHC gold, before or after.

I'm not going to vote but I gotta say that for sheer importance as a tournament I can see why people choose WHC but in terms of entertainment I think the WJC takes it.
It just seems that the kids really give a lot more effort into these matches than the vets on WHC teams.

WHC for sure.

WJC is great, for sure, but after all it's "only" a junior tournament.
Gotta vote for the men competition :)

WHC no doubt, with some players from NHL :handclap:

WJHC is fun to watch and all, but it's still only junior players.

WHC, at least there we don't get relegated all the time. :D

1. Europe hosts (almost) all WHC, while North America hosts the lion's share of the WJHC. Factoring in the different time zones, it is much harder for Europeans to follow WJHC than to follow WHC.
2. Some European leagues (e.g. the German one) still continue their regular league play and have as much as six full game days over the course of the WJHC, which also lessens the interest in some countries. During the WHC, however, all league play is long finished, so hockey fans can focus on their national teams.
3. I can only speak for Germany, but I would guess that it isn't that much different in other European countries: junior sport isn't that big in Europe. Even ubiquitious soccer's youth development programs draw only minor crowds. For some reason people in Germany are much more interested in senior competition than in junior sports. The latter has only a minor following mainly consisting of parents, friends and other peers of the participating athletes and maybe a small number of 'freaks' like zecke26. :p:

Thus said, North Americans shouldn't be surprised if their beloved WJHC loses this poll.

P.S.: I abstained, as both tournaments have their pros & cons.

That is the difference, WHC is the hockey event in Finland, for a month or so every spring this turns into hockey country. Even people who normally don't follow hockey are watching and talking about it, and when we play Sweden that is what everyone is watching.

I chose WJHC but you got a point there. Most people don't care about these games, don't watch them or don't even know the games are on. But even my wife, who hates all kinds of sports, watches Finland's WHC games.

For me the big difference is that in WJHC I can watch all the games and get excited about them (with all the young stars and energy), but in WHC only Finland's games (sometimes) give me that same feeling.

To me it's pretty simple. I love competition between countried, it brings the best feelings for me and I love it. I rather win WJC than a SC with my fav. team that being said I prefer WHC over WHJC

Olympics
WHC
WJHC
SC

Since the answer is obvious with North Americans, I would like to pole the Europeans ONLY. This is not ment to vindicate anything, just want to know. Please, DO NOT vote if you are not a Euro fan. Thanks!

Glad I'm American. Phew.

I don't know about you, but the insane amount of individual mistakes makes WJC almost too frustrating for me to watch.

The World Juniors are always entertaining, but the World Championships are the culmination point of the European hockey season and something to look forward to all year long. As already mentioned in this thread, putting aside the apparent overwhelming preference for the senior tournament amongst actual fans, even people who normally have very little interest in hockey will watch the latter portions of the WHC while being unaware of the WJHC's existence.

15 votes for whjc??? :)) who?

1. Europe hosts (almost) all WHC, while North America hosts the lion's share of the WJHC. Factoring in the different time zones, it is much harder for Europeans to follow WJHC than to follow WHC.
2. Some European leagues (e.g. the German one) still continue their regular league play and have as much as six full game days over the course of the WJHC, which also lessens the interest in some countries. During the WHC, however, all league play is long finished, so hockey fans can focus on their national teams.
3. I can only speak for Germany, but I would guess that it isn't that much different in other European countries: junior sport isn't that big in Europe. Even ubiquitious soccer's youth development programs draw only minor crowds. For some reason people in Germany are much more interested in senior competition than in junior sports. The latter has only a minor following mainly consisting of parents, friends and other peers of the participating athletes and maybe a small number of 'freaks' like zecke26. :p:

Thus said, North Americans shouldn't be surprised if their beloved WJHC loses this poll.

P.S.: I abstained, as both tournaments have their pros & cons.

slovak league continuos also... with some good u20 players :)

Glad I'm American. Phew.

:laugh:

You're just jealous. I was already poled and it was great!

:laugh:

You're just jealous. I was already poled and it was great!


:naughty: how does my "pole" feel?

Glad I'm American. Phew.

OK, OK :laugh:

WHC, 'cause that tourney is just awesome. WJHC is usually not even on TV here, this was the first year it was on, and the interest is MUCH lower than in WHC. Everyone's talking hockey and about the national team when the WHC is on. Other than hockey nuts, and the years when we actually succeed at the WJHC (like this one), people usually aren't even aware it's on.

I'll go mostly by entertainment value and say

1. World Cup
2. WJHC
3. Olympics
4. WHC

However, if all IIHF tournaments were to be played on small rinks then the Olympics would be the clear #1, both when it comes to entertainment and the overall significance of the tournament. The WHC is played way too often and lacks too many significant (NHL) players to be really interesting.

I'll go mostly by entertainment value and say

1. World Cup
2. WJHC
3. Olympics
4. WHC

However, if all IIHF tournaments were to be played on small rinks then the Olympics would be the clear #1, both when it comes to entertainment and the overall significance of the tournament. The WHC is played way too often and lacks too many significant (NHL) players to be really interesting.

First of all World Cup.. why? It's future is very unclear, why not add Canada Cup aswell then..

the WJHC isnt played on small rinks every year, yet you say that the olympics would be the clearcut #1 if it were always played on small rinks and you rank it behind the WJHC? hmmm...

For some reason people in Germany are much more interested in senior competition than in junior sports.
What do you mean "for some reason" ? I think the reason is pretty obvious, the level of play is just so much lower in junior sports. Similarily the fourth division gets lower crowds than the top flight.

Since the answer is obvious with North Americans, I would like to pole the Europeans ONLY. This is not ment to vindicate anything, just want to know. Please, DO NOT vote if you are not a Euro fan. Thanks!

nice post.... :shakehead

WHC, the juniors are fun but I prefer to see the pros.

WJHC... easily:handclap:

Junior hockey is much more fun to watch.

This is interesting. As a Canadian I could never figure this one out. The WHC is a tournament of Stanley Cup playoffs leftovers just like, until recently, the Olympics was a tournament of NHL leftovers. The WHC is not a matter of which country has produced the best team, but rather which country has the best group of players that didn't make the playoffs!

A big reason Canadians love the WJHC is because it is the closest thing to a 'best against best' tournament we get on an annual basis. The 'best against best' part is the important part but most European fans don't seem to care about that for some reason. I guess it comes down to motivations - Canadians want to see how our best do against the world's best. And I guess Europeans just want to win something once in a while :p.

I know that sounds arrogant, and I don't mean it to, but I believe it's not far from the truth.

This is interesting. As a Canadian I could never figure this one out. The WHC is a tournament of Stanley Cup playoffs leftovers just like, until recently, the Olympics was a tournament of NHL leftovers. The WHC is not a matter of which country has produced the best team, but rather which country has the best group of players that didn't make the playoffs!

A big reason Canadians love the WJHC is because it is the closest thing to a 'best against best' tournament we get on an annual basis. The 'best against best' part is the important part but most European fans don't seem to care about that for some reason. I guess it comes down to motivations - Canadians want to see how our best do against the world's best. And I guess Europeans just want to win something once in a while :p.

I know that sounds arrogant, and I don't mean it to, but I believe it's not far from the truth.

:facepalm:

Europeans want to win something once in a while?? I hope you're joking... Didn't the last best against best tourney (men) finish with Canada getting beat by a certain Switzerland and then eliminated by Russia?

This is interesting. As a Canadian I could never figure this one out. The WHC is a tournament of Stanley Cup playoffs leftovers just like, until recently, the Olympics was a tournament of NHL leftovers. The WHC is not a matter of which country has produced the best team, but rather which country has the best group of players that didn't make the playoffs!

A big reason Canadians love the WJHC is because it is the closest thing to a 'best against best' tournament we get on an annual basis. The 'best against best' part is the important part but most European fans don't seem to care about that for some reason.
WJC are not best on best, it's juniors on juniors and then not even all of them.

If you see it as a "best on best" then the same could be said about the WC : it's a tourney for the best players outside the NHL. Juniors are NHL leftovers too, in fact they are also WC leftovers.

Juniors, easily.. Especially when its played on the small rinks in NA...

The thing with North Americans is the WHC takes a back seat to the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

This is interesting. As a Canadian I could never figure this one out. The WHC is a tournament of Stanley Cup playoffs leftovers just like, until recently, the Olympics was a tournament of NHL leftovers. The WHC is not a matter of which country has produced the best team, but rather which country has the best group of players that didn't make the playoffs!

A big reason Canadians love the WJHC is because it is the closest thing to a 'best against best' tournament we get on an annual basis. The 'best against best' part is the important part but most European fans don't seem to care about that for some reason. I guess it comes down to motivations - Canadians want to see how our best do against the world's best. And I guess Europeans just want to win something once in a while :p.

I know that sounds arrogant, and I don't mean it to, but I believe it's not far from the truth.

For me, atleast, the olympics is THE tourney becaus THAT'S when all the best gather from all over the world to duke it out for the gold.
And if I remember correctly, SWEDEN is still the champion.

The juniors is more hyped in NA becaus you're simply more crazy about hockey over there and talk about prospects obsessivly. And I can see why, becaus you have the best league in the world and these young guns will end up being drafted and dissapear without a trace from europe into WHL/AHL/NHL.
Add to that there is junior leagues in NA which is very popular where the bulk of these guys already play. We never get to see them before the JWC.
And let's face it, no other country comes close to Canada when it comes to the amount of resources and money involved in the sport in general and the effort you put into the tourney.

WJC are not best on best, it's juniors on juniors and then not even all of them.

If you see it as a "best on best" then the same could be said about the WC : it's a tourney for the best players outside the NHL. Juniors are NHL leftovers too, in fact they are also WC leftovers.

The WC is not the best of the best as most of the best Canadian players can't go because they are playing playoff hockey in the NHL. Same goes for other countriesbest players(but to a much lesser extent).

How are juniors "nhl leftovers"? They are nhl prospects....

The WC is not the best of the best as most of the best Canadian players can't go because they are playing playoff hockey in the NHL.
Some can't go, not most. Most have been knocked out by then.

How are juniors "nhl leftovers"? They are nhl prospects....
They are not good enough to be in the NHL (apart from maybe one or two), that's how.

WHC for me. I watch all our games in the WHC but I like the juniors too. WJC games tend to be more exciting because the pace is higher and the players get more in to it. For me the worst thing about the WJC is that there's a huge gap in talent between teams like Canada/Russia and Finland (at least in the last couple of years). Sometimes it's just painful to watch Finland play because the players make so many stupid mistakes. It really feels like it's men vs. boys against the better teams. In the men's level we can compete equally with any team. I guess Finnish players develop slower than North American players.

It also helps that WHC is televised every year on nationa TV whereas you need to pay to see WJC games.

They are not good enough to be in the NHL (apart from maybe one or two), that's how.

Which would only be a good argument if the hockey was any less entertaining.

The thing with North Americans is the WHC takes a back seat to the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

I feel the same way and I'm from europe.. Plus I find the hockey in the World Championships to be kinda boring most of the time..

They are not good enough to be in the NHL (apart from maybe one or two), that's how.

Didn't Team Canada have like 8 players still U20 and unable to play in the tourney cause of being with their pro-teams?

Some can't go, not most. Most have been knocked out by then.


They are not good enough to be in the NHL (apart from maybe one or two), that's how.


Most have been knocked out? The Canadian team is comprised by players from teams who dont make the playoffs, ie the worst teams. A few players are airlifted from teams who loose in the 1st round, but only a select few. The best teams are in the playoffs, therefore the best players are not available.

Which would only be a good argument if the hockey was any less entertaining.
I indeed find the hockey at the WC a lot more entertaining but I guess not everybody does.

15 votes for whjc??? :)) who?


Probably the NA fans who refuse to follow drirections.

WJHC for sure. More entertaining hockey, it doesn't matter if the players are "only" juniors or not, the entertainment value is so much higher anyway.

I used to love the WHC back in the days (80's and early to mid-90's) but nowadays it just feels so washed out. It was more fun when there were only 8 competing nations, the games were closer and it felt more meaningful.

And sure, there are some NHL'ers in this tournament, but usually only a few high-caliber names if any at all, most of the stars turn the tournament down. I'd rather take the Olympics or World Cup any day.

WHC is more competitive. There is less of a talent gap as countries can use players born over a 15 year period (or so). Also the quality of hockey is better. Most of the players in the WJC aren't really headed anywhere.

Most have been knocked out? The Canadian team is comprised by players from teams who dont make the playoffs, ie the worst teams. A few players are airlifted from teams who loose in the 1st round, but only a select few.
Markov, Tyutin and Nabokov are reigning World Champions and I'm pretty sure they played in the 2nd round of the NHL playoffs, not just the 1st. But yeah probably their team mates were still involved in the playoffs somehow and therefore "unavailable".

The best teams are in the playoffs, therefore the best players are not available.
Your logic is flawed.

Didn't Team Canada have like 8 players still U20 and unable to play in the tourney cause of being with their pro-teams?
Indeed the WJC do not even feature the top juniors. Those who do take part in the WJC are not good enough to be in the NHL. In fact many will be career minor leaguers if that. If one feels it does not diminishes the value of the WJC, fine but then that argument can not be used to belittle the WC either.

I know that sounds arrogant, and I don't mean it to, but I believe it's not far from the truth.

Considering Canada's record in 3 OG, this IS far from truth.

WJHC feels more exciting, because they play worse defense. Defensemen take perhaps the longest to develop and in the WJHC it shows why.

WHC for sure.
If Sweden wins then its party for weeks.

But if Sweden wins the WJHC then we are happy ofcourse but we wouldnt celebrate it like we would if we won the "real" thing.

I look at the replies, then I look at the poll, and I go hmmmmmmmmm

The WHC is not a matter of which country has produced the best team, but rather which country has the best group of players that didn't make the playoffs!


I agree with this. I personally have become a bit fed up with WHC's. Teams depend a lot on which NHL-team makes the Stanley Cup playoffs and which don't. For example if Detroit fails to make the playoffs or drop out in the first round Sweden's WHC-team has a chance of getting Nicklas Lidström, Henrik Zetterberg, Tomas Holmström, Niklas Kronwall, Mikael Samuelsson, Johan Franzen and Andreas Lilja. If that was the case Finland would only get Valtteri Filppula and Czech Republic Jiri Hudler. Other Stanley Cup-failures would of course even things out but WHC-teams are still too depended on NHL-dropouts.

IMO the WHC's would be a better, or at least more interesting, tournament if played completely without the NHL-pros. Then it would showcase the new talent that are aiming for the NHL. A lot of young players would get a chance. Every spring the Finnish media start to speculate which player is available for the WHC's and which is not.. that's when I start hoping that as many as possible Finnish NHLers make the playoffs, especially the veterans.

That being said, I have always watched all of Finland's WHC-games and will continue to do that. One of the main things in this and in every competition is of course to beat the Swedes. That thing alone keeps me interested in WHC's.

1. Olympics (with NHLers)
2. World Cup
3. Olympics (without NHLers)
4. WJC's
5. U18 WCH's
6. WCH's
..
..
..
..
.. Euro Hockey Tour

Euro Hockey Tour

If Medevedev/Larionov stick to the word this will be gone in a year

WHJC is fun and all, and it's interesting to watch up and coming Juniors and draft picks, but for me WHC is the "real" tournament.

I agree with this. I personally have become a bit fed up with WHC's. Teams depend a lot on which NHL-team makes the Stanley Cup playoffs and which don't. For example if Detroit fails to make the playoffs or drop out in the first round Sweden's WHC-team has a chance of getting Nicklas Lidström, Henrik Zetterberg, Tomas Holmström, Niklas Kronwall, Mikael Samuelsson, Johan Franzen and Andreas Lilja. If that was the case Finland would only get Valtteri Filppula and Czech Republic Jiri Hudler. Other Stanley Cup-failures would of course even things out but WHC-teams are still too depended on NHL-dropouts.
And what's the odds of that happening?;)

The WJHC is much more exciting to watch IMO. Instead of watching a bunch of losers, coming from NHL teams that never made the playoffs, I prefer hungry players who knows their future as an NHL star is at stake if they don't play at their highest level.

Never understand why WJHC is so popular in NA. Yeah, the hockey is exciting but it's just juniors hockey. Although I'm not too crazy about WHC, Stanley Cup is better

Never understand why WJHC is so popular in NA. Yeah, the hockey is exciting but it's just juniors hockey. Although I'm not too crazy about WHC, Stanley Cup is better

Because you get to get some future superstars play along with the best junior players in the world. It is very exciting hockey.

They are not good enough to be in the NHL (apart from maybe one or two), that's how.

Do you know what prospect means? It means prospective nhl'er. That is completely different then "leftovers".

All that needs to happen is for the NHL and the IIHF to wake up, pull their heads out of their *****, and establish a credible and consistent World Cup of Hockey.

The NHL shouldnt be wasting its time stopping their season to participate and give free exposure to some corrupt business' (the IOC's) tournament.

Play it in September, or just take a 3 week break every four years, of your own accord, in the middle of January, and play the tournament.

Whatever tournament NHL players participate in, that is the legit one. It isnt the Olympic logo that legitimizes the Olympic hockey tourney; Its the NHL taking time off to participate that legitimizes the Olympic tourney.

The NHL and IIHF could work together on their own tournament, working towards their own goals, and do it properly, without having to deal with the bureaucracy and shadiness of the IOC. They could market and play games in multiple regions of the world and actually spread the games around as opposed to playing 15 or so games in the some Russian backwater, the North of Italy, or Japan; Places where no real progress is going to be made. They could be playing games in New York, LA, Helsinki, Stockholm, Moscow, Geneva or even London and get some real exposure for the players and the league instead of just being one of a few dozen competitions comprising a silly sporting spectacle that very little of the world actually pays attention to.

Instead, the NHL bends over for Jacques Rogge and formerly that delusional crook Samaranch and asked politely what else they can do to help.

Wait, this post had nothing to do with which tourney is more exciting. :laugh:

Im gonna say the juniors because the kids make more mistakes and it leads to more drama.

Glad I'm American. Phew.

lol, that was funny, had to read that twice.

IMO the WHC's would be a better, or at least more interesting, tournament if played completely without the NHL-pros. Then it would showcase the new talent that are aiming for the NHL. A lot of young players would get a chance. Every spring the Finnish media start to speculate which player is available for the WHC's and which is not.. that's when I start hoping that as many as possible Finnish NHLers make the playoffs, especially the veterans.


Sounds kinda weird because the WCH would then basically be the Euro Hockey Tour, with a couple more teams. And everybody hates EHT :D

A new pull should be created for anyone to answer but canadians. Question: should world cup be changed back to the Canada cup. Question is most likely been ask. I only ask because of the revenge threads and what not, seems like a great way gain interest to win a cup that is canadian.

Indeed the WJC do not even feature the top juniors. Those who do take part in the WJC are not good enough to be in the NHL. In fact many will be career minor leaguers if that. If one feels it does not diminishes the value of the WJC, fine but then that argument can not be used to belittle the WC either.


But this tournament isn't about which countries NHLers are better (See WC, WHC, Olympics. It's about teenaged hockey players playing for their countries. What does that have to do with the NHL?

EDIT: Just to add this is why I LOVE this tournament. It's hockey at it's purest. 90% of the kids playing won't be in the NHL but right now none of them are multi-millionaires playing a sport. Most of these kids are playing for pride and that's it.

Shouldn't there be some sort of a "both" option on the pole?

I enjoy them both. I know you only want Euro viewpoints, but they can both be really exciting tourneys.

The only reason why the juniors might be more enjoyable for me is the time of year when they occur. Waking up on boxing day to watch the juniors is a bit of a tradition for many Canadians.

The WC is not the best of the best as most of the best Canadian players can't go because they are playing playoff hockey in the NHL. Same goes for other countriesbest players(but to a much lesser extent).

How are juniors "nhl leftovers"? They are nhl prospects....

Not only most of our best players can't go, the veterans who could go often decide not to. Last year most of the guys decided to go because it was in Canada and this year they probably will go because it is the last chance for them to showcase themself for the Olympics. But in any regular year, no body here really cares about the WHC. I mean, I still watch the games and I'm pissed off when we lose, but most people in the country couldn't care less if some "losers" not in the NHL playoffs lost a meaningless tournament. The WJC brings our nation together because it is an holiday tradition.

Markov, Tyutin and Nabokov are reigning World Champions and I'm pretty sure they played in the 2nd round of the NHL playoffs, not just the 1st. But yeah probably their team mates were still involved in the playoffs somehow and therefore "unavailable".


Your logic is flawed.

I dont think my logic is flawed. I am sure Canada could put together a team from all the teams in the playoffs 2nd round on that would win the cup fairly handily from the teams that were already there.

I wont vote since I'm not euro but I will just say that the WJHC is some of the purest hockey and it's consistently delivered some of the best hockey games I've ever seen. One of the great plus to this tournament is the fact that it happens during the holidays. I've always looked forward to it because I can watch most games.

There is just something about the exuberance of young players who are just bursting on the international scene. We are seeing them become men and discovering who can take it to the next level.

Sounds kinda weird because the WCH would then basically be the Euro Hockey Tour, with a couple more teams. And everybody hates EHT :D

No it wouldn't. First of all it wouldn't be a tour :) it would be a showroom for all of the best non-NHL players. If they wanted to they could play those boring EHT-matches but in the end all of the best non-NHL players would meet up in the World Championships.

I voted for the WC but if it is polled anywhere else outside of HFBOARDS in Europe the votes would be 99.5% for the WC. U-20 is a niche, a tournament that shows the depth of your national hockey. The reason why it is so popular in Canada is because of the long tradition of CHL. Fans in Canada just know the junior hockey very well.


This is a very exciting tournament where really only two teams compete on a regular basis Canada and Russia, with US in the mix in the last 6 or so years and Sweden ocasionally rising to the top and then disappearing again.

And yes, the games are exciting because it is bunch of young kids, not spoiled with money but also not very experienced and thus full of mistakes. It doesn't come close to the play of senior guys. Watching the Spengler Cup and ten switching to the juniors you see the skating pace drops by about 30%. The juniors not as fast, not as powerful as the the grown up men. There is a reason in English they are called teens.

I wish the WJC was more popular in Russia so there was a program established to help the youngsters develop more at that ag. Often the talented kids would be polishing the benches on senior teams and then they go to the WJC and can't deal with so much pressure.

Sounds kinda weird because the WCH would then basically be the Euro Hockey Tour, with a couple more teams. And everybody hates EHT :D

The Euro tour sucks because there's 4 of them and, more often than not, coaches use it as a testing ground for future potential national team players. It's never really best vs best for all 4 countries involved.

Do you know what prospect means? It means prospective nhl'er. That is completely different then "leftovers".
The difference is the so called "prospects" are not nearly as good.

But this tournament isn't about which countries NHLers are better (See WC, WHC, Olympics. It's about teenaged hockey players playing for their countries. What does that have to do with the NHL?
Someone argued that the WC was full of players who could not make the NHL playoffs, implying it made the tournament less interesting. I pointed out that the same is true of the WJC. I don't think it is very hard to understand.

What do you mean "for some reasons" ? I think the reason is pretty obvious, the level of play is just so much lower in junior sports. Similarily the fourth division gets lower crowds than the top flight.

But the same applies for North American junior sport, yet millions of people follow College sports, Major Junior leagues and the minors. The appeal of development leagues seems to be much higher to North Americans than to Europeans, although the level of play is higher in the four Majors as well.
IMO the reasons are a different perception of junior sports, which is due to a different sport history and a different organization of sports in NA. Since this would carry us away from the thread's main topic and I do not have the time to elaborate on it, I decided to paraphrase it with the term "for some reasons". ;)

If Medevedev/Larionov stick to the word this will be gone in a year

They can't. National federations have a signed agreement about the EHT until 2011, I believe. That agreement also says clubs can't stop players from participating without facing severe sanctions (e.g. no CHL).

Back on topic, WHC. All the games on tv, on decent times of the day, most of the players are familiar and Finland has a decent chance of medalling each year.

I don't know about you, but the insane amount of individual mistakes makes WJC almost too frustrating for me to watch.

Glad I'm not the only one that isn't entertained by bad hockey.

The World Juniors are too much about individual talent (which is entertaining at times ill give you that i.e. Tavares) but the team aspect is just horrible because they make aggravating and stupid mistakes and just don't have the maturity and experience.

I think its big in places like Canada because of the tradition and level of importance it holds to those people much like college football, even though not as high of a level of play as the NFL, is huge in America because of those same reasons. It's just tradition for people to care. And I'm a big college football fan so I can relate.

It's never really best vs best for all 4 countries involved.

That's the glaring flaw of the WC.

I find it interesting because the rosters (particularly the North American ones but lately the European ones) change so often, from year to year.

In that vein, I get exposed to players I may not see on a regular basis because they play in the Western Conference or on teams without a lot of media attention.

From a competition stand-point, it doesn't mean all that much and it happens far too often.

I think the one thing that the WJC has that many Canadians whine about in the NHL is intensity. We go through an 82 game regular season with so many games going through the motions its great to see the intensity of the games in the WJC.

it is kinda tough choice, but I think WHC is worth more.

Didnt vote...but I will give my oppinion....


Aside from the WHC not even being close to a best vs best, one of the things that drives me NUTS about it is teams change their rosters mid tournament. Its ridiculous.

You could literally go from being a team expected to finish near the bottom to a legitimate medal threat if just one NHL team is eliminated early.

I really enjoy the WHC and never miss a game, but for me the internation tournaments go:

Olympics (with NHLer)/World Cup



WJHC
WHC


Olympics without NHLers

I picked WJHC. I don't care a whole lot about either, but when it comes to WJHC, I follow up on the scores and check some games. On the other hand, I barely even check up on how the WHC finished. Since I moved to Canada, the WHC seems much less important. I find that in the WJHC, we get the best (most of them) of their generation against each other, while on the WHC it's more of a turnament of leftovers.

For me, WHC definitely. I also follow Junior Championships, but WCH is way more important to me.

WHC is huge in Finland as many of you might guess, its Finland's biggest sports event every year. Finlands population is only about 5 million, but even the last years Canada - Russia final got almost 1 million TV-viewers :handclap:.

World juniors aren't big in Finland and thats a shame. The games are shown in cable tv pay channels and i think the ratings are very bad... I really hope that this great tournament gets bigger here.

some corrupt business' (the IOC's) tournament

That's hearsay.


or just take a 3 week break every four years, of your own accord, in the middle of January, and play the tournament.

The NHL does not want to do that for the OG, why would they for a "Cup of Hockey"?

They can't. National federations have a signed agreement about the EHT until 2011, I believe. That agreement also says clubs can't stop players from participating without facing severe sanctions (e.g. no CHL).

Well, most of clubs that send players do not participate in CHL. "Severe" and IIHF can not be used in one sentence as the multiple recent events show.

Next, a players can turn down an invitation, and if it is made clear that the league wants to send only juniors - at that was Larionov's proposal, they just might. Then, I believe, if one country sends a junior teams basically, the tourny will unravel quickly.

If Medevedev/Larionov stick to the word this will be gone in a year

Really? Good, I hope that happens. It's such a garbage tournament, and has been for years now. Good riddance.

Well, most of clubs that send players do not participate in CHL. "Severe" and IIHF can not be used in one sentence as the multiple recent events show.

Next, a players can turn down an invitation, and if it is made clear that the league wants to send only juniors - at that was Larionov's proposal, they just might. Then, I believe, if one country sends a junior teams basically, the tourny will unravel quickly.

The difference is that the re was no written agreement about the player tranfers, about EHT there is. Swedish club HV-71 would have prevented one of their Finnish players from playing the most recent tournament (or the Karjala tournament) but all it took was an "angry huff" from Kalervo Kummola about those sanctions the Swedish club would face and the player was allowed to play. Besides, it's not like the players don't want to play theses games. E.g. Sinuhe Wallinheimo was publicly disappointed that he couldn't participate because the Finnish league had to re-schedule his club's game against Espoo Blues to the day before the Channel One Cup tournament began.

The difference is that the re was no written agreement about the player tranfers, about EHT there is. Swedish club HV-71 would have prevented one of their Finnish players from playing the most recent tournament (or the Karjala tournament) but all it took was an "angry huff" from Kalervo Kummola about those sanctions the Swedish club would face and the player was allowed to play. Besides, it's not like the players don't want to play theses games. E.g. Sinuhe Wallinheimo was publicly disappointed that he couldn't participate because the Finnish league had to re-schedule his club's game against Espoo Blues to the day before the Channel One Cup tournament began.

The KHL teams might not be able to do anything to keep Finnish, Swedesh and Czech players from participating, but they can easily do that with the Russians: if both the KHL menagment and AK Bars tell Morozov, that his participation is undesirable he might stay. Moreover, if the KHL presses hard enough Bykov will simply stop calling top-level players. It's a "corporate" desicion :sarcasm: that is Medvedev decides, than it takes several meetings to convince Bykov and Tretyak, and here we have a Rus junior team.

Then go convince the other 3 teams to play this one.

And if they do by some chance, we will turn into perenial WJHC champs :sarcasm:

The thing with North Americans is the WHC takes a back seat to the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Well, the series PHI vs WSH was way better than the WHC last spring/summer. I suppose that makes sense why it takes the back seat ;)

Olympics (with NHLer)/World Cup



WJHC
WHC


Olympics without NHLers

Olympics without NHLers? That's the Spengler Cup roster! :laugh:

Any international tournament where Anson Carter is a marquee name is inferior in my books.

There's something about watching these young guys who aren't playing for millions of dollars that makes it so appealing. All the games are played like their last. Also the fact that we're watching the future NHL stars is always pleasing.

I am looking at the replies, then - at the poll, and I think somebody is not following the request ... :sarcasm:

Never understand why WJHC is so popular in NA. Yeah, the hockey is exciting but it's just juniors hockey. Although I'm not too crazy about WHC, Stanley Cup is better
That's just the thing. Junior hockey is extremely popular in Canada, which translates to the WJHC also being popular.

As an example, here are the average attendace figures so far this season for teams in Sweden's junior leagues:

Leksand - 226
Brynäs - 195
Mora - 182
HV 71 - 163
Luleå - 157
Timrå - 145
Örebro - 136
Skellefteå - 133
Björklöven - 129
Linköping - 129
Troja/Ljungby - 124
Västerås - 122
AIK - 118
Djurgården - 113
Södertälje - 105
Frölunda - 103
MODO - 99
Rögle - 85
Huddinge - 74
Malmö - 65

And here are the same numbers for the CHL teams (who play schedules of 72/68/70 games a season):

Quebec - 10,973
London - 8,964
Calgary - 8,118
Vancouver - 7,484
Ottawa - 7,326
Halifax - 6,280
Kitchener - 6,202
Kelowna - 6,099
Spokane - 6,075 *
Everett - 5,732 *
Red Deer - 5,452
Oshawa - 4,603
Edmonton - 4,596
Regina - 4,577
Windsor - 4,453
Sault Ste. Marie - 4,447
Saskatoon - 4,362
Kamloops - 4,209
Seattle - 4,208
Tri-City - 4,157
Moncton - 4,134
Sudbury - 4,051
Medicine Hat - 4,006
Brandon - 3,980
Guelph - 3,966
Rimouski - 3,952
Chilliwack - 3,887
Lethbridge - 3,853
Chicoutimi - 3,824
Saint John - 3,703
Portland - 3,465 *
Sarnia - 3,446
Erie - 3,377 *
Saginaw - 3,359 *
Barrie - 3,302
Cape Breton - 3,275
Kingston - 3,111
Montreal - 3,101
Niagara - 2,908
Peterborough - 2,816
Kootenay - 2,784
Belleville - 2,775
Gatineau - 2,762
Drummondville - 2,598
Prince George - 2,589
Shawinigan - 2,505
Moose Jaw - 2,335
Owen Sound - 2,322
Mississauga - 2,280
Plymouth - 2,260 *
Swift Current - 2,244
Lewiston - 2,222 *
Prince Albert - 2,103
Victoriaville - 2,083
Rouyn-Noranda - 2,026
Brampton - 2,008
Prince Edward Island - 1,964
Acadie-Bathurst - 1,835
Baie-Comeau - 1,830
Val-d'Or - 1,474

* = U.S. Team

Quite the difference (in fact, these numbers are basically on par with the SEL), but it just goes to show what junior hockey means to this country. You might not understand why it's so popular, but it is.

Not a Euro so didn't vote, but I have to echo some of the thoughts others have expressed.

The biggest issue I have with the WC is that it occurs at the same time as the SC playoffs. It can make it hard to focus on both. I can only convince the girlfriend that so many games a week are all that important for me to watch. :)

The fact it doesn't include the best of the best is a frustration at times, but I really enjoy watching the non-NHLers that do have the chance to participate. Cory Murphy a couple years ago... a lot of the Russians last year.

The real reason I prefer the WJCs is that I love watching the kids play. The games are so much more intense than pro-level hockey. Mistakes lead to chances going both ways that kind of hockey is exciting.

The number one difference is that in junior you can't play the trap with nearly as much effectiveness. Too many players make mistakes and cause the system to fall apart. Hockey without the trap is fantastic.

I'm honestly having a real tough time watching NHL games right now after having become accustomed to this style of play and this level of intensity.

The order for me:

Olympics
WJC
Stanley Cup Finals
WHC

The order for me:

Olympics
WJC
Stanley Cup Finals
WHC

Ditto.

Note: I have respected the OP's wishes and have not clicked on the poll.

I am looking at the replies, then - at the poll, and I think somebody is not following the request ... :sarcasm:

There is at least 17 North American votes on WJHC... But if the real European number is something like 30-35 it's still much more than it really should be. It's just that people in these boards are generally more interested in junior hockey.

...and yes, I went through all the profiles that had voted for WJHC. Apparently I don't have better things to do :)

...and yes, I went through all the profiles that had voted for WJHC. Apparently I don't have better things to do :)

Well, there are many Europeans living in NA after all :)

Well, I'm an American so I didn't vote in the poll, but I just want to echo some of the sentiment I've read here: the WJHC's may be more FUN to watch, but the WHC is much a higher level of competition. It's not even a question, WHC is way more important.

To be perfectly blunt, I have little to no interest in the World Hockey Championship. Being a 40 year old Canadian, there is no reason for me to care about a supposed world championship tournament that has only been conducted on the continent (thus watchable time zones) on which I live (and hockey is a two continent world) one time. The only thing going for it is a bit of tug at the heart strings when pulling for Team Canada, but that is little different than the Spengler Cup.

Amazing. Brandon doesn't do too bad with attendance considering that barn they play in :laugh: good times there.

To be perfectly blunt, I have little to no interest in the World Hockey Championship. Being a 40 year Canadian, there is no reason for me to care about a supposed world championship tournament that has only been conducted on the continent (thus watchable time zones) on which I live (and hockey is a two continent world) one time. The only thing going for it is a bit of tug at the heart strings when pulling for Team Canada, but that is little different than the Spengler Cup.

agreed. and no i didn't vote in the poll but i'll take the juniors over the WHC anytime.

Well I am American but with heavy Russian roots. As much as I love to see the new young Russian talent, I love watching the World Championships much much more.

I was in Quebec for the last WHC and I was very surprised by the Euro presence in Canada. I met people from pretty much every nation in the tournament (was very surprised to see a decent amount of people from Belarus) and not just at the games but at the after party events and even just around town. The last game I went to was Canada vs Sweden and I was very surprised on the amount of Non-Canadians there considering the game was in Canada. All in all it was a blast (the group I was with started the wave at the end of the game which was awesome) and I can see why it would be considered more exciting than the WJHC.

The WJHC are in my home city next year but I am not expecting anything near the amount of foreign support I saw at the WHC but who knows maybe I'll be surprised. Mind you the event occurring in the middle of winter in of one of the coldest places of Canada vs the middle of summer will not help the situation.

I'll take the World Juniors over any hockey any time, whether it be NHL, NHL playoffs, any other professional league game, World Cup of Hockey, Olympics. The kids wear their heart on their sleeve the way that no other can, there is something special about this tournament that cannot be emulated anywhere else.

I'll take the World Juniors over any hockey any time, whether it be NHL, NHL playoffs, any other professional league game, World Cup of Hockey, Olympics. The kids wear their heart on their sleeve the way that no other can, there is something special about this tournament that cannot be emulated anywhere else.

Over NHL playoffs?

Dayum.

Well I guess if your team is eliminated it gets a lot less interesting.

The NHL does not want to do that for the OG, why would they for a "Cup of Hockey"?

Because they can control the scheduling. As I said, 'of their own accord'. Meaning the NHL makes it work for them.

Instead of trying to accommodate the IOC and get half the league to Turin or Sochi or Nagano, the NHL accommodates the games to maximize efficiency and market penetration.

Instead of playing 15 games in Japan or Italy in the hopes that fans in Germany or Switzerland or England tune in and get interested; the NHL can schedule games for where ever it feels will have the most signifficant long-term benefit for their league, and the sport of hockey.

An organized World Cup could play its finals in somewhere like London or Germany and it would sell out long in advance from traveling Canadian fans alone.

So long as the IIHF and the NHL continue to pull in separate directions while at the same time bumbling around with outside parties like the IOC the game will not be able to gain any real traction as an internationally credible sport.

The NHL and IIHF could market a 'World Cup Final' in almost any modern city in the world and get a significant amount of traveling fans, and local 'lookyloo' types who get caught up in the event.

Hold the round robin for the North American pool in North America, and the same for the European pool in Europe. Play through to the 1/4 finals in Europe and NA, and then play the semi-final and the final in a 'host city' that doesnt always have to be a hockey mecca.

Heres a mock tourney

North American pool
1. Canada
2. USA
3. Czech Republic
4. Switzerland

games played in New York, LA, Toronto, Montreal


European pool
1. Sweden
2. Russia
3. Finland
4. Germany

games played in Stockholm, Helsinki, Moscow, Munich

Based on previous tournament ranking or some other criteria would have to be used to determine which European teams would have to play in the North American pool as its only right that all the European teams get to play game on true home ice at least every other tourney.

Top team in each pool gets a bye to the semis; while the 2 and 3 seeds play a quarter final match to see who goes on to the semis (played in the pool's 'home').

Then you play the semi finals and the finals in whatever city gets selected to host. Preferably alternating between Europe and NA.

For examples sake

2013 - Moscow
2017 - Toronto
2021 - Stockholm
2025 - New York
2029 - London
2033 - Alberta
2037 - Bern
2041 - Chicago

a supposed world championship tournament that has only been conducted on the continent (thus watchable time zones) on which I live (and hockey is a two continent world) one time.

If that's the only reason, we should not be watching WJHC then, forgett about the NHL. And oh jeez, all these soccer dorks who wake up at 3.00AM to watch the World Cup in Japan.... :rant:

Meaning the NHL makes it work for them. .. the NHL can schedule games for where ever it feels will have the most signifficant long-term benefit for their league, and the sport of hockey.

It's exactly this attitude that gave low credibility to the WC of Hockey.



Then you play the semi finals and the finals in whatever city gets selected to host. Preferably alternating between Europe and NA.

For examples sake

2013 - Moscow
2017 - Toronto
2021 - Stockholm
2025 - New York
2029 - London
2033 - Alberta
2037 - Bern
2041 - Chicago


I think you are too optimistic about this. The NHL is not likely to be a part of the tourney which does not culminate in the exclusively NA playoffs.

I'm very surprised to see that the difference isn't bigger. At least in Sweden the WHC is MUCH bigger, it's not even close. If this poll was on a newspaper's site instead of here I'd say about 95% would say the WHC. I enjoy the hockey in the WJHC though, it makes for fun and entertaining games.
I'm not sure, but I think this is the first year they show all of Sweden's games on TV? While they show all play-off games and many of the group stage games in the WHC.

If that's the only reason, we should not be watching WJHC then, forgett about the NHL. And oh jeez, all these soccer dorks who wake up at 3.00AM to watch the World Cup in Japan.... :rant:

So the WJHC and the World Cup have only been in Europe 1 time each in 40 years? And I have gotten up early in the morning to watch Olympic hockey which amazingly enough happens on a 4 year time schedule just like the World Cup, unlike the yearly (thus less impressive for me) basis.

Nor am I saying the World Hockey Championship is a bad tournament, I said that I have no interest in it. People talk about selling the game of hockey and that Canada and the IIHF should do more, but the simple truth is the IIHF has never done much to sell the World Hockey Championship to Canada. For the majority of my life it was played 7+ hours out of my sports watching time cycle, nor did the Canadian media put much importance to it, nor did we have the internet giving us second by second updates.

The simple truth is, something which is accessible to a group will be more important to that group.

WJHC for me actually. It's hockey how its supposed to be. Not destroyed by tactics just pure run-and-gun oldschool hockey. And especially if the tournament is in North-america with the small rinks and all the crazy canadiens who destroys the all time attendance record.

Simply put Canadians (and I think Americans) are not much interested in competitions that are not 'best against best', or close to it. This all stems from years and years of WHC and Olympic competitions in which the Soviet Union claimed hockey supremacy because they ran roughshod over the NHL leftovers that comprised Canadian national teams. Canadians didn't like that because we felt we weren't being given the proper respect because the world could never see our best players in these tournaments. The 72 series was supposed to change all that, but as we know that was almost a disaster. The 72 series showed to everybody just how powerful the Soviet Union was, but it didn't change the fact that Canadians don't care about the results when the teams playing are second rate.

As others have mentioned, the WJHC is not quite 'best vs best' because the very best juniors are in the NHL, but it's pretty close (for the U20 age group I mean). Incidentally, the one year that it was truly the best U20 players in the world (i.e. during the NHL lockout), Canada absolutely destroyed everybody. I'm just sayin' :).

As others have mentioned, the WJHC is not quite 'best vs best' because the very best juniors are in the NHL, but it's pretty close (for the U20 age group I mean).
"Best for the U20 age group" is very different from "best". The teams playing in the WC resemble the Olympic teams a lot more than WJC teams do, in fact half the teams in the WC do ice their best lineup.

So, like Canadians and Americans, Europeans are not much interested in competitions that are not 'best against best', or close to it, and that is exactly why they follow the WC more than the WJC.

Incidentally, the one year that it was truly the best U20 players in the world (i.e. during the NHL lockout), Canada absolutely destroyed everybody. I'm just sayin' :).
And during the last real best on best, Canada finished 7th. :handclap:

"Best for the U20 age group" is very different from "best". The teams playing in the WC resemble the Olympic teams a lot more than WJC teams do, in fact half the teams in the WC do ice their best lineup.

So, like Canadians and Americans, Europeans are not much interested in competitions that are not 'best against best', or close to it, and that is exactly why they follow the WC more than the WJC.


And during the last real best on best, Canada finished 7th. :handclap:

You're intentionally missing my point.

It's very obvious that a *major* factor of the quality of various WHC teams is who misses the NHL playoffs. Out of the top 600 players in the world (assuming total NHLPA = 600 players) only approx. 280 are available for the WHC! That's less than half! Do you mean to tell me that if Canada beats Sweden in the 2009 WHC final, that you and a million other Sweden fans won't use the excuse that if the players on the Red Wings were available then the result would be different?! Of course you will!! That's why Canadians don't care about this tournament - because the result means so little!

The argument is *not* about the level of play, it's about the meaningfulness of the result! The result of the U20 tournament is more significant as an indicator of a country's hockey program than the result of the WHC. And I say this despite the fact that Canada has played in the gold-medal match in 5 of the last 6 WHC tournaments!

I think part of the reason for the disparity in the WJHC is simply depth. You limit a tournament to 3 birth years instead of 20 (which is roughly what happens if you compare it to the pros), and it becomes a test of depth. Canada, as a result (along with Russia) typically excels in this tournament (maybe I'm arrogant, but when you go for depth I think Canada and probably Russia are generally unrivaled). Everybody likes to win.

Also, there's already a huge following for junior players in North America. These are players that many people know (even if it's just cheering for your hometown hero). It's almost like an all-star game that matters! (imagine that)

Obviously there's the issue of the WHC conflicting with the Stanley Cup Playoffs (vs. WJHC being a holiday tradition during an NHL lull) and many countries (especially US/Canada, since the NHL is our only elite league and many players opt out) missing many of their top players. To that end, it's a catch 22. No one in Canada cares, because it's a poor representation of our country. But it will forever be a poor representation of our country, as long as no one cares.

Personally, I really wouldn't mind shaving 15 games off the regular season and getting a full roster out there for the WHC. But there's no way the NHL would ever agree to that kind of revenue loss. What about the Stanley Cup champs vs. the WHC champs? That would be something I'd be interested in. Regardless, this poll (or more so the responses) has been an eye opener for me.



The argument is *not* about the level of play, it's about the meaningfulness of the result! The result of the U20 tournament is more significant as an indicator of a country's hockey program than the result of the WHC. And I say this despite the fact that Canada has played in the gold-medal match in 5 of the last 6 WHC tournaments!
Very well put. But I don't get why it would be despite our success?

Also...

2013 - Moscow
2017 - Toronto
2021 - Stockholm
2025 - New York
2029 - London
2033 - Alberta
2037 - Bern
2041 - Chicago
...Alberta's a city now, eh?

I think you are too optimistic about this. The NHL is not likely to be a part of the tourney which does not culminate in the exclusively NA playoffs.

So then why do they participate in a tourney that has culminated in playoffs played exclusively in Italy and Japan? And a tourney that isnt likely to have it's playoffs in North America until 2022 at the earliest.

And im sure if given the option the NHL would rather showcase it's talents at the O2 Arena in London than at some converted swimming pool in Nagano.

...Alberta's a city now, eh?


As far as the IIHF is concerned. Just look at the WJHC rotation.

You're intentionally missing my point.
I'm not missing your point at all, I think everybody got it by now that you believe the WJC is closer to being best on best. I'm merely pointing out that there is another way to look at things, which you seem to completely disregard.

It's very obvious that a *major* factor of the quality of various WHC teams is who misses the NHL playoffs. Out of the top 600 players in the world (assuming total NHLPA = 600 players) only approx. 280 are available for the WHC! That's less than half! Do you mean to tell me that if Canada beats Sweden in the 2009 WHC final, that you and a million other Sweden fans won't use the excuse that if the players on the Red Wings were available then the result would be different?! Of course you will!! That's why Canadians don't care about this tournament - because the result means so little!
It means so little... to them ! Obviously the rest of the world does not feel the same way.

The argument is *not* about the level of play, it's about the meaningfulness of the result! The result of the U20 tournament is more significant as an indicator of a country's hockey program than the result of the WHC.
Again, it is more meaningful to you. The rest of the world disagrees, and your inability to understand their point of view is truly remarkable.

Again, it is more meaningful to you. The rest of the world disagrees, and your inability to understand their point of view is truly remarkable.

You are the one that doesn't seem to understand.

What does winning at the WHC mean? Not a whole hell of a lot. That you're the strongest country in hockey? Well no. You can make that argument at the Olympics, but much of the competing teams at the WHC is made up of Stanley Cup playoff leftovers.

If Sweden loses, they can use the legitimate excuse that it would have been different if Red Wings were available.

If Canada loses, they can use the legitimate excuse that it would have been different if, say, Sharks or Ducks were available.

However much tradition there is with the tournament, it doesn't really count for anything. You don't even get bragging rights for winning it. The WHC is similar to randomly selecting 20 players from each country, and having them compete.

The World Juniors, on the other hand, are the top players from each country under the age of 20, minus the dozen or so cream of the crop that are already in the NHL. It's the prospect base and development programs of the countries competing.

So then why do they participate in a tourney that has culminated in playoffs played exclusively in Italy and Japan?

And they are done with this, aren't they?

However much tradition there is with the tournament, it doesn't really count for anything. You don't even get bragging rights for winning it. The WHC is similar to randomly selecting 20 players from each country, and having them compete.

The World Juniors, on the other hand, are the top players from each country under the age of 20, minus the dozen or so cream of the crop that are already in the NHL. It's the prospect base and development programs of the countries competing.
That is merely your opinion. I don't think it needed repeating a 500th time, others do understand your opinion they just disagree with it. The majority outside Canada feel the WC mean a lot more than the WJC and they're not wrong simply because you insist they are.

You are the one that doesn't seem to understand.

What does winning at the WHC mean? Not a whole hell of a lot. That you're the strongest country in hockey? Well no. You can make that argument at the Olympics, but much of the competing teams at the WHC is made up of Stanley Cup playoff leftovers.

If Sweden loses, they can use the legitimate excuse that it would have been different if Red Wings were available.

If Canada loses, they can use the legitimate excuse that it would have been different if, say, Sharks or Ducks were available.

However much tradition there is with the tournament, it doesn't really count for anything. You don't even get bragging rights for winning it. The WHC is similar to randomly selecting 20 players from each country, and having them compete.

The World Juniors, on the other hand, are the top players from each country under the age of 20, minus the dozen or so cream of the crop that are already in the NHL. It's the prospect base and development programs of the countries competing.

You are absolutely correct, good post.

That is merely your opinion. I don't think it needed repeating a 500th time, others do understand your opinion they just disagree with it. The majority outside Canada feel the WC mean a lot more than the WJC and they're not wrong simply because you insist they are.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong. It's opinion. If someone enjoys the Spengler Cup more than the Olympics, fine.

I'm just trying to explain my point of view and that of a lot of North American fans.

The reasoning for people to prefer the WHC has very little to do with the competition itself. People cite the history, the tradition, the fact their country's media embraces the WHC more, and the presence of some of the world's elite.

That's fine, I'm not going to begrudge people enjoying something over another, but it doesn't really count for anything in my view.

If the KHL took over and the prime destination for the best of the best in hockey was Russia, the Stanley Cup would lose a lot of it's luster. Like the European fans and the WHC, I would still appreciate it for it's history and tradition, but it wouldn't count for much. Same way the AHL Championship doesn't mean much to me either.

There's a purpose and a meaning behind the Stanley Cup, the Olympics and the World Juniors, which is why I care about it. Not so much when it comes to the WHC, the Spengler Cup, and things like that.

The reasoning for people to prefer the WHC has very little to do with the competition itself. People cite the history, the tradition, the fact their country's media embraces the WHC more, and the presence of some of the world's elite.
The much higher level of competition is a big reason why people prefer the WC, the fact their country's media embraces the WHC more is a consequence of that higher level of competition.

That's fine, I'm not going to begrudge people enjoying something over another, but it doesn't really count for anything in my view.
Fine. Similarily the WJC doesn't mean anything to the majority outside Canada. There's more purpose and meaning to them behind the
WC than behind the WJC.

The WHC is similar to randomly selecting 20 players from each country, and having them compete.




was canada able to select another 20 players (from entire NHL Or any league) who wiil make up a team stronger than WHC canada. i m sure they wasnt able. That another canada would be as strong as sweden/finland now, but sure would be unable to win tournament

in WHC 50-80% of best players were available for each team


btw you think a little too much of nhl. remember pre-WHC 2008 exebition game Canada (with hitly nash doan getzlaf etc) russia (with no NHLers) 1-4

Today WHC teams (at leat RUS and CZE) doesnt depend on NHL-ers as much as it was in 90-s.

for instanse 2009 NHL-all-star 1st line player kovalev was available and wanted to play in whc, but wasnt chosen by coach

WJC or WHC = russian 2nd league or WHC! Not easy to make a choice

I'm not missing your point at all, I think everybody got it by now that you believe the WJC is closer to being best on best. I'm merely pointing out that there is another way to look at things, which you seem to completely disregard.


It means so little... to them ! Obviously the rest of the world does not feel the same way.


Again, it is more meaningful to you. The rest of the world disagrees, and your inability to understand their point of view is truly remarkable.

First of all, there's no reason to be insulting simply because you have the veil of internet anonymity to hide behind. If I wouldn't say something to a person over friendly beers at the pub then I won't say it over the internet. Try that.

Secondly, If I'm having a hard time understanding your point of view it is only because you have yet to produce a single good argument to support it! My compatriot and I have produced valid points to support the notion that the WJHC is a superior indicator of a country's hockey stength. Your only argument for why the WHC is more important outside of Canada can be summarized as follows:

"WHC = men"

So? This is starting to sound like a creation vs. evolution argument where you have one side producing valid arguments based on facts (that would be us) and the other simply saying "you're wrong" (that's you).

I'd like to reiterate that I do like the WHC; I agree that the calibre of hockey is higher than WJHC; I agree that it is fun to watch; I do celebrate when my country wins. But do you honestly think that the winner of the WHC has a stronger claim to the title of "country with strongest hockey program" than the winner of the WJHC? If so, why?

one side producing valid arguments based on facts (that would be us) and the other simply saying "you're wrong" (that's you).
I have not said that you're wrong. My point it's that about perception, not about being right or wrong. So not only do you fail to understand a different point of view but you also start to put words in my mouth. I'm done with you if you can't even read what is being said.

But do you honestly think that the winner of the WHC has a stronger claim to the title of "country with strongest hockey program" than the winner of the WJHC? If so, why?
Yes I certainly do. Because it is much closer to being best on best (to put it simply).

Because it is much closer to being best on best (to put it simply).

BS

WHC teams are comprised of whoever is available to play. It couldn't be further from a best on best tourny.

The WJHC, on the other hand, like the Olympics and World Cup, is absolutely a best on best tournament.

BS

WHC teams are comprised of whoever is available to play. It couldn't be further from a best on best tourny.

The WJHC, on the other hand, like the Olympics and World Cup, is absolutely a best on best tournament.
No, it's best juniors on best juniors, which is very different.

No, it's best juniors on best juniors, which is very different.

But it's something.

WHC isn't best anything.

No, it's best juniors on best juniors, which is very different.

You're just being deliberately obtuse.

It's BEST on BEST - period. Of course it's U-20 - did you not get the memo that this is a 'junior' tournament?

But it's something.

WHC isn't best anything.
It's best players outside the NHL playoffs' conference finals.

If some prefer best dog-hockey players on best dog-hockey players, i'm fine with that, though. I love dog-hockey myself.


It's BEST on BEST - period. Of course it's U-20
Yes it's U-20, which makes it different from best on best.

It's best players outside the NHL playoffs' conference finals.

If some prefer best dog-hockey players on best dog-hockey players, i'm fine with that, though. I love dog-hockey myself.



Yes it's U-20, which makes it different from best on best.

You, my internet enemy, are too thick to function off of life support. I'll leave you to ponder your wrongs...

It's funny how ignorant people are towards other people's point of views.

I voted for WHC. It means more to me. No, it doesn't make me think the winner of it is the best in the world of ice hockey. It has another kind of meaning to me and I have enjoyed watching it since I was a little kid. Men playing against each others. There will be some better players missing always but there are still plenty good ones there and none are terrible.

WHC is much more in the media here, has been and will be, that has of course some influence on it but not all of it is that. It allows some to see their favorite players from their own leagues and from the NHL play together and against each others there (if the NHLers happen to come/be available). It's a nice event for me.

I have enjoyed watching some WJHC games. They have been entertaining to watch. In the past they haven't really been on TV here but now they are getting more attention (though it's still very small).

The problem with WJHC for me is just that it's still boys on ice. I don't care of the U16, U17, U18 and whatever there are (for any sport). U20 falls into that category for me. Just doesn't get me caring, best vs best or not, they are still boys. I can see why some like and care more about it but if I had to save either WHC or WJHC from going away, I would pick WHC ("luckily you don't get to pick that, stupid Frozen!") just because I'm a biased European who has grown to like it more. I do appreciate the big talents in WJHC and other junior stuff but I just can't get myself to care who wins or loses on that level.

I voted for WHC. It means more to me. No, it doesn't make me think the winner of it is the best in the world of ice hockey. It has another kind of meaning to me and I have enjoyed watching it since I was a little kid. Men playing against each others. There will be some better players missing always but there are still plenty good ones there and none are terrible.


Well put. It seems those arguing about how 'meaningful' the WHC is forget that the term 'meaningful' is not synonymous with the phrase 'meaningful indicator of national hockey supremacy.' I would argue it like this:
WJHC is a small but complete sample of players (i.e. under 20).
WHC pulls from a larger sample but less complete.
North Americans feel (generally) that the WJHC is a better indicator of the completeness of it's sampling. There are very few eligible and deserving players who do not participate.
Europeans (it would seem) prefer the WHC because it involves a higher level of skill, and due to tradition (or w/e), the result is more meaningful to them. Some also view it as a better indicator of national program success, because it's closer to a true best of the best.

Generally, I think the argument for WHJC as an indicator is more compelling simply because the discrimination (i.e. missing players) is more balanced for all countries. Players miss the WHJC as more of a 'skim off the top' system (already in the NHL). Players miss the WHC due to team performance in the NHL (and apathy, for some nations), and that can lead to certain teams being punished much more heavily than others (particularly since often NHL teams aim for specific team makeups that require the playstyles of a specific geography - e.g. Burke's Duck's when they won the cup).

I voted for WHC. It means more to me. No, it doesn't make me think the winner of it is the best in the world of ice hockey. It has another kind of meaning to me and I have enjoyed watching it since I was a little kid. Men playing against each others. There will be some better players missing always but there are still plenty good ones there and none are terrible.

WHC is much more in the media here, has been and will be, that has of course some influence on it but not all of it is that. It allows some to see their favorite players from their own leagues and from the NHL play together and against each others there (if the NHLers happen to come/be available). It's a nice event for me.

I have enjoyed watching some WJHC games. They have been entertaining to watch. In the past they haven't really been on TV here but now they are getting more attention (though it's still very small).

The problem with WJHC for me is just that it's still boys on ice. I don't care of the U16, U17, U18 and whatever there are (for any sport). U20 falls into that category for me. Just doesn't get me caring, best vs best or not, they are still boys. I can see why some like and care more about it but if I had to save either WHC or WJHC from going away, I would pick WHC ("luckily you don't get to pick that, stupid Frozen!") just because I'm a biased European who has grown to like it more. I do appreciate the big talents in WJHC and other junior stuff but I just can't get myself to care who wins or loses on that level.

Brilliant. Excellent. I can totally accept that well-reasoned and well-stated point of view. And I can definitely understand people who say that the WHC means more to them personally. We're all different and I appreciate we don't all value things the same way. No problem.

The argument I was having, as BrockH eloquently put it, was over which tourney is a better litmus test of 'hockey supremacy'. I have yet to see a good argument for why the WHC might be a better indicator of this. As a result myself and millions of North Americans will continue to believe that the WJHC is an excellent test of the state of a country's player development program. For this reason the WJHC will continue to be more important to me.

Despite the fact that some here have stated that the WJHC is as relevant as 'dog-hockey' (sour grapes much?), winning 5 U20 tourneys in a row, and 12 of the last 20 does say something good about how Canada develops hockey talent.

And dammit, I'm allowed to be proud of it without being called arrogant and cocky!

The argument I was having, as BrockH eloquently put it, was over which tourney is a better litmus test of 'hockey supremacy'. I have yet to see a good argument for why the WHC might be a better indicator of this.
From this thread I have only read the first few pages and some of the latest replies here so I haven't followed the arguments that closely but from those I have, I agree, I haven't seen a good argument for that either. Haven't seen in other threads/places either mostly because of the reasons BrockH pointed out above.

As a result myself and millions of North Americans will continue to believe that the WJHC is an excellent test of the state of a country's player development program.
I believe so too. It's a great test for that and also a good opportunity for young - not so well known - players to make their name more known.

For this reason the WJHC will continue to be more important to me.
Understandable. I would probably feel the same way had I not grown up with the WHC being touted around so much while WJHC mostly being an unknown event here.

..., winning 5 U20 tourneys in a row, and 12 of the last 20 does say something good about how Canada develops hockey talent.
It does. I wish as a Finn that our Finnish youngsters could do the same. It's needed for a bright future. Finland has won the WJHC twice (if you count the first one '87 as a real win) but for me, I never got the same emotion out of it compared to when we won our only WHC gold in 1995 (wherever you went here nearby, people were crazy about it, from 4 year olds to grandparents). It actually feels weird to appreciate (and care about) great young talents coming in to the men's world of hockey (no matter which nation) but at the same time not really care about the road they take before that with their junior (national) teams.

And dammit, I'm allowed to be proud of it without being called arrogant and cocky!
Agreed. Same goes for all sides. I don't know who this quote was pointed at but if it was for my earlier reply's first sentence that you left out of the quote, I can tell you that mine wasn't directed at you, just a dumb generalization. It's just something that's always there for everything that has more than one possible opinion. People watch through their own glasses, some have their own country's/whatever's flags/logos painted on the glasses a bit, some so much that they can't really see anything else than that. Antero Mertaranta's (our legendary national team tv announcer) "blue cross glasses" that he wore always made me laugh. Fit him well but still in a good sense!

Generally, I think the argument for WHJC as an indicator is more compelling simply because the discrimination (i.e. missing players) is more balanced for all countries.
WJC is an indicator of which countries have more players to choose from, rather than an indicator of who has the best development programme. Just because you have more players does not mean you are any better at developping them. The WC reduces the importance of that sheer number of players, smaller countries who make the best of what they have are more likely to suceed in the WC, which makes it more interesting.

The one thing about the WJHC is that it puts a premium on hockey depth, and is not necessarily the best barometer of a country's skill. In general, the teams that will compete most consistently at the WJHC are the large nations with big hockey programs (Canada, Russia, USA). Sweden has popped up due to a new crop of talent, but will they remain gold medal contenders after this generation moves on? The other three teams likely will, year after year.

Put this way:

-assemble a team of 18 players from a single year of births, and those countries with many more players will benefit from their sheer depth

-but assemble a team of 18 players from 5 or 6 or 10 years of births, and those countries with many more players do not necessarily have the same benefit as taking them from a single year, because you have to restrict your team to 18 players

-it is commonly said that Canada could put together 3 or 4 or even 5 teams that could compete on an international level on a fairly decent footing. This is the disadvantage of depth. We simply don't produce 6 Sidney Crosby's in 6 years. Generational talents remain rare. We do, however, produce a fairly large number of competitive players.

-the fact that smaller countries compete more consistently at the WHC or Olympics is a testament to this fact, in that they can take advantage of 20 years of talent as opposed to simply 2 or 3 like in the WJHC.

-the fact that smaller countries compete more consistently at the WHC or Olympics is a testament to this fact, in that they can take advantage of 20 years of talent as opposed to simply 2 or 3 like in the WJHC.

I agree 100% the WJHC favors those countries with depth. However, I look at it from the opposite perspective. A small difference in talent for a 'best of 20 years' team becomes vastly more pronounced as you whittle the selection pool down. I tend to view the pronounced difference at the WJHC as simply that slight difference only amplified under a microscope (eg. a smaller cross section makes the gap seem relatively larger).

Maybe what's perceived as making the WHC fair to some, makes it seem unfair to others? I'd say that's a matter of perception. Although, I absolutely agree it makes it more competitive. And for the record Canada has 3x the population of Sweden and Czech Republic (who double Finland), but Russia is 5x our size and the US doubles Russia.

I'm aware of my complete bias in this opinion, but I don't really see a way to objectively remove. Maybe if we ever get enough Olympics/World Cups (assuming all countries are passionate about those), then it will eventually be reflected in the numbers. At this point though I don't think there's any evidence to prove my theory.

People should just watch this clip to understand the love of Europeans for the WC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glsbUckKAuY

People should just watch this clip to understand the love of Europeans for the WC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glsbUckKAuY

Now I remember what bugs me about this tourny. I'm looking at the game. There's the ice; there's the players; there's the bench; there's the crowd; and huh - there's the Skoda - what? How? why?

and huh - there's the Skoda - what? How? why?

Also, freaking Euros are plastered with ads, use cheerleaders, and drive smaller cars, not to mention that we have to twist our tongue to pronounce their last names ... damn...

The seniors for me. For some reason I can't bring myself to watch ANY junior sports regularly. There might be the odd game that I watch but certainly not usually.

Now I remember what bugs me about this tourny. I'm looking at the game. There's the ice; there's the players; there's the bench; there's the crowd; and huh - there's the Skoda - what? How? why?
Sponsoring?`You might be interested to know that I pay a lot less to watch hockey live than any NHL fan. For me, that is an advantage and I don't look at the ads, I look beyond that and see sports ;)

Now I remember what bugs me about this tourny. I'm looking at the game. There's the ice; there's the players; there's the bench; there's the crowd; and huh - there's the Skoda - what? How? why?

Why? Skoda's are perfectly nice cars. Incidentally, not all that many of the cars you see in North America are found on European roads. Even the ones that are common to both continents are usually different in some ways. And the European ones are always better, which is unfortunate for us (see e.g. Ford Focus: great little car in EU, steaming pile of poo in NA)..

Also, freaking Euros are plastered with ads, use cheerleaders, and drive smaller cars, not to mention that we have to twist our tongue to pronounce their last names ... damn...

No need to be an ass. You're putting words in peoples' mouths. :shakehead:

And for the record Canada has 3x the population of Sweden and Czech Republic (who double Finland), but Russia is 5x our size and the US doubles Russia.

I think of size in hockey terms, not in total population.

There are a lot of sports competing for attention in Russia and the US, comparatively speaking.

I voted for the WHC.
What I like about the WHC is that it involves more countries than the WJHC. I know the level of the teams outside the usual big nations is clearly inferior, but it's always nice to have your country represented in the WHC. ;)
Also I'm not completely convinced by the "nhl playoffs leftovers" argument. There are more than a few great players in the nhl teams that did not make for the playoffs, or were eliminated after the first round. Sure it's not truly the best against the best, but it's pretty close.

Of course, for me, the greatest international competition is the Olympics. I can't believe the nhl is so reluctant to allow its players to take part in it... But that's not the debate here!

Hockey isn't meant to portray one country's superiorty over other. It's just a friggin sports.

I watched some of the clips of past WHC and read comments made by some european fans which seemed to centre alot around 'MY country is better than Your country, we got more nukes and submarines and etc...' kind of things.

IMO, even in olympic hockey, it's just a hockey and winning gold means which country was better at playing hockey over others... and more importantly which country loves hockey more than other country.

That's why I can see Canadians loving WJHC more than WHC. WHC.. doesn't really have huge significant meaning in terms of hockey other than it is a tournament involving national teams. It's mostly about 'My country>Your country' without hockey being the primary reason to watch. I can see some european fans who don't get alot of Stanley Cup playoff coverage favouring WHC but SC playoff is just superior product if you really are committed to watch pro playing at top of their level.

WJHC is more about which country has put more resources and importance into hockey which I think is very very culturally important to Canada. Because hockey=Canada, in the minds of every Canadian. That's why I think I see this parity between people.

Sponsoring?`You might be interested to know that I pay a lot less to watch hockey live than any NHL fan.... ;)

As well you should.

Why? Skoda's are perfectly nice cars. Incidentally, not all that many of the cars you see in North America are found on European roads. Even the ones that are common to both continents are usually different in some ways. And the European ones are always better, which is unfortunate for us (see e.g. Ford Focus: great little car in EU, steaming pile of poo in NA)..



...

just having some fun. I still find it odd to see a car sitting in the crowd.

As well you should.

Touché :).

Sponsoring?`You might be interested to know that I pay a lot less to watch hockey live than any NHL fan. For me, that is an advantage and I don't look at the ads, I look beyond that and see sports ;)

Even if the NHL decked out the players in corporate banners, I still highly doubt we would see the savings passed on to the fans (unless of course it resulted in a demand decrease).

Touché :).

For the win:yo:

My tournament rankings in terms of interest:

1. Olympics
2. World Cup
3. Junior World Cup
4. Swedish Cup
5. Stanley Cup

Weird that so many people would rather watch kids... WCH. Very easily.

My tournament rankings in terms of interest:

1. Olympics
2. World Cup
3. Junior World Cup
4. Swedish Cup
5. Stanley Cup

Where's the world champs?