The Greatest Sporting Event in History

[Argoknot]

Case closed = mind closed, apparently.

Argue semantics all you want to deflect the argument, you have no evidence and ZERO answers. Keep peddling. Your usual condescension won't get you out of this one, insert maniacal laugh... mooowhahahahaha.

So what event was bigger? Should be easy to prove if it topped 72.

[Will]

I have to agree that the 1972 Summit Series victory is the greatest Canadian sporting event in history. This was the first time that Canada put its best players against the Soviet "amateurs." From what I understand many thought it would be a walk in the park for Canada, but it proved to be nothing like that. The cultural impact that this series had transcended sport. Mario Lemieux's goal in 1987 was in perhaps just as dramatic a situation (within the game), but it hasn't had the cultural impact on our country that 1972 did. I suppose, one could make an argument for the 2010 Winter Olympics because Canada hosted it and was quite successful, but I don't see it having the lasting impact in Canadian consciousness as did the 1972 Summit Series.

[Ron]

Case closed.

CFL 1995: Calgary Stampeders vs Toronto Argonauts in the last game of the season. No game in history has had a greater impact to Canadian Culture.

[ArgoRavi]

Case closed.

CFL 1995: Calgary Stampeders vs Toronto Argonauts in the last game of the season. No game in history has had a greater impact to Canadian Culture.

The game that saved this great country!

[OV Argo]

I would vote for the 72 Summit Series as the greatest sporting event of all-time - just IMO of course, and it should be Captain Obvious that this purely subjective - i.e. there is no "truth" or righteous opinion here. 2 teams - continents apart - that had never faced each other in any way, play a tough, hard fought 7 game series that goes down to the wire/last minute.

And this is a Canadian / (Russian) thing. Americans would have no clue / wouldn't get this at all - a lot of them think the Super Bowl winners are "World Champs" = pompous, clueless, ignorant clowns. Some sports are competed for in a lot of places in the world - soccer for sure, hockey, basketball, baseball.

NO Olympic event - no matter how great a single athletic performance - can IMO compare to a 7 game series in a team sport with 20 some or more players on each roster. The Olympics reward system is a joke to me: a swimmer can win something like 7 medals in brief, ultra limited events, but an entire team (soccer, hockey, etc.) can go thru an entire tournament / multiple games to beat all others and gets rewarded with ONE medal ? - total farce. A runner winning gold in the 100, 200, 400, relay, 1500 and the marathon - now that would be something. ;o)

Team sports - easily, IMO - trump all single competitor sporting competitions. End of story !!!



Canadian football - with 12 men per side / 24 players on the field at one time (27 or so different positions in all counting offence, defence and special teams), played on about the largest playing surface possible = the ultimate - toughest, most complex - team sport (IMO / that is all ;o) )

The Grey Cup is the greatest prize in sports in that regard AND it has been played for / in competition for over 100 years - (sorry Super Bowl, you arent even close).

; 7 game series to win a championship in a TEAM sport - like the Stanley Cup or World Series are the toughest to win sports prizes - IMO (so, sorry swimmer who won 5 Olympic medals, you ain't even on the same planet)

[Argoknot]

Montreal's Forgotten Deadly Massacre
37 people lost their lives
Michael D'Alimonte mtlblog.com January 12, 2016

So what does the above story have to do with this thread? Imagine if that happened today, 37 people dying in a fire in Montreal would dominate headlines for a week.

Except this tragic story happened September 1, 1972, the day before the opening game of the Canada/Russia series. The twists and turns and upcoming drama of the series hadn't even started and yet the very anticipation of the series stole the spotlight from this enormously tragic event.

[Argoknot]

This is one of my favourite Canadian sporting moments and up there in the Mount Rushmore (pardon the expression) of greatest Canadian sporting moments. He did not one but three things that were never accomplished before in history and one of those (triple lutz) took the rest of the world 12 years to catch up to.

This is a clip from the early days of ABC's Wide World of Sports and the best part is near the end when Jim MacKay and Dick Button excitedly announce the marks. Oh yeah, Jackson utters the immortal "I'm glad I could do it for Canada" just to make it all the sweeter.

[Wobbler]

I'd say that the greatest sporting event in history was Alan Shepard hitting a couple of golf balls on the Moon in 1971. Events on Earth may be more competitive, but they're also a lot easier.

[Argoknot]

This is a really good discussion about the importance of 72. Can't believe I actually agree with Bruce Dowbiggin whom I loathe for his long standing personal vendetta against Don Cherry. Dowbiggin paints the picture of how we were a different country in 72 which is what I wanted to say here and didn't earlier. The closing minutes make it clear why it was the greatest sports event in Canadian history.

[ArgoZ]

The importance of 72 is lost on how long ago it was. Anyone under 50 years old, really has no personal significance attached to the series, which includes most of today's sports media. The series had more political and historic significance than a "greatest" sporting event. Looking back at the players and format, it probably would be viewed as an below average tournament, had it happened today. Reading everyone's thoughts on this years World Cup of hockey proves that.

[Argo57]

The importance of 72 is lost on how long ago it was. Anyone under 50 years old, really has no personal significance attached to the series, which includes most of today's sports media. The series had more political and historic significance than a "greatest" sporting event. Looking back at the players and format, it probably would be viewed as an below average tournament, had it happened today. Reading everyone's thoughts on this years World Cup of hockey proves that.

The 72 series was an amazing event, Canada against the "evil" Soviets.
Most if not all of the best International players now play in the NHL and can be watched on a nightly basis, not so back then.
No one had a clue about Tretiak, Yakushev, Kharlamov and the like and expected Team Canada to steamroll over them.
As we all know didn't happen and in fact led to better training and coaching in North America. *Paul Henderson's overall hockey career doesn't warrant inclusion in the Hockey Hall of Fame but his scoring of this iconic goal should be duly honoured separately*

[Ron]

The importance of 72 is lost on how long ago it was. Anyone under 50 years old, really has no personal significance attached to the series, which includes most of today's sports media. The series had more political and historic significance than a "greatest" sporting event.

And let's not forget that by the time game 4 ended in Vancouver ... the country was totally against the team. (You'd think Milo and Barker ran the team) That team was considered the greatest embarrassment in sports history by many Canadians. (Cue Phil telling off Canadians!) The comeback they made was incredible in any time period considering the odds. (Just ask JP Parise about the odds LOL).

[Argoknot]

Of course the signifigance is lost on those who didn't witness it and I usually find it hard to read what they say as having much value aside from an opinion. But the catch is, I did see it and every event that followed and it damn near was on the level of 9-11 in its own way. No other event was close to being like that.

The PC warriors judge Bobby Clarke but as Bruce Dowbiggin said above (and remember I never agree with him) in 1972 if they took a poll when Bobby Clarke raised his stick the vast majority would have said "Hit 'em". People forget (or don't know) how different the country was then.

One other topic I have some interest in is the JFK assassination. Like 72, it came before 9-11 and thus had a greater affect. As big as 9-11 was there were people who had experienced a similar shock before but in the case of JFK it came first in the TV age (when TV really came of age). Pearl Harbor was a massive shock but it wasn't on TV screens so the shared experience wasn't as significant.

An interesting comment about the Kennedy Assassination and one I think has validity is that the 50's ended when JFK was assassinated (1963)

Anyway, don't take my word for it, watch the TVO video and read the Bill Brioux article, as he said it was our "moon landing' and Paul Henderson was our Neil Armstrong (not the Eskimo coach)

[Argoknot]

Peter Mahovlich was never more proud to be Canadian than after 1972 Summit Series
Stu Cowan, Montreal Gazette September 3, 2016

Peter Mahovlich has lived in the United States for the last 30-plus years, but is still a very, very proud Canadian.

And the former Canadiens centre, now 69, was never more proud than after the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union. Mahovlich scored one of the most memorable goals of that eight-game series — a short-handed effort — in Game 2 in Toronto as Canada beat the Soviets 4-1 after a stunning 7-3 loss in Game 1 at the Montreal Forum.



Friday marked the 44th anniversary of that Game 1 loss that shocked the country and Mahovlich was back in town at Place des Arts to take part in the ’72 Summit Series Tour that is travelling across Canada with players sharing their stories from that historic event with fans. Mahovlich was to be joined by Serge Savard, Ken Dryden, Yvan Cournoyer, Phil Esposito, Dennis Hull, Bobby Clarke, Pat Stapleton and Team Canada coach Harry Sinden. There will be other stops in Winnipeg Sept. 6, Vancouver Sept. 8 and Toronto Sept. 10 to celebrate the Summit Series that Canada won 4-3-1 on “The Goal” by Paul Henderson with only 34 seconds remaining in the final game.

Forty-four years have passed, but Mahovlich still remembers the feeling when Team Canada left the ice for the last time in Moscow.

“Just looking up at the (Canadian) fans who were there,” Mahovlich recalled when the ’72 Summit Series Tour was announced earlier this year. “What we accomplished. Knowing the turmoil that we went through. I’ve seen pictures of it, but I’m just looking at the fans with my gloves up in the air … and I knew my mother was in the crowd. I don’t think we would have been able to accomplish what we did without the support of the Canadian people that sent us telegrams in Moscow.”

Mahovlich’s parents had come to Canada from Yugoslavia, settling in Timmins, Ont., looking for a better life. Peter and older brother Frank were both part of Team Canada in 1972.

“They were fairly well-to-do there for them,” Mahovlich said about his parents in Europe. “My father left his country, being a land owner and a farmer, to come over here, work 25 years in the mines because he knew it was a better life for his family.”

Mahovlich remembers the Team Canada plane landing in Montreal and the players celebrating on a fire engine. He saw Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and pulled him up to enjoy the moment with them. Mahovlich thinks it’s cool that Trudeau’s son, Justin, is now Prime Minister. Mahovlich, who now lives in Queensbury, N.Y., and is a pro scout for the Florida Panthers, said he’s not a political person, adding: “I’m a human being … I like helping other people.”

“Everybody thinks (Justin) Trudeau’s too liberal right now, but he’s right,” Mahovlich said. “Let’s just keep inviting people in. It’s OK. We know that terrorism is going to affect us somewhere or somehow. But let’s not change the fact of who we are and what we are because of these idiots.”

Canada is a melting pot and the Team Canada locker room was a bit like that before the Summit Series started. Back in 1972, NHLers really didn’t like — or even speak — to players from other teams. They were the enemies, unlike today when players change teams often and are NHLPA union brothers when commissioner Gary Bettman locks them out.

“The culture of the league was such that you didn’t talk with players from other teams, even in the summertime,” Mahovlich said, adding that when the NHLers first met for a brief training camp in 1972 “it wasn’t Team Canada.”

“It was a bunch of professional athletes from different teams,” he said. “Montreal Canadiens fans were Montreal Canadiens fans. They didn’t like Bobby Clarke, they didn’t like Phil Esposito. People don’t realize how that culture has changed through time because of all the international hockey that has been played by the pros since then.”

But as the series continued and the pressure increased — with an entire country watching — the Team Canada players started to bond and would eventually become friends and teammates for life. Now they’re touring the country sharing their memories.

The World Cup of Hockey starts this month in Toronto, but it will be nothing like that Summit Series 44 years ago when the two teams — and countries — hated each other. There will never be another hockey series like it.

“When it’s all said and done, it’s about how proud it makes you feel to be a Canadian,” Mahovlich said. “We love our life, we love our lifestyle. Thank God I didn’t have to go to war. If you look at our history, when it was really, really bad and really tough, the first people to go in there were Canadians. French Canadians, English Canadians, it didn’t matter. Let’s get it done.

“It’s always nice to be part of Canadian history in a sense. That you accomplished something.”

[shayman]

Peter Mahovlich was never more proud to be Canadian than after 1972 Summit Series
S
And the former Canadiens centre, now 69, was never more proud than after the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union. Mahovlich scored one of the most memorable goals of that eight-game series — a short-handed effort — in Game 2 in Toronto

Right in front of me. Here's another goal from that game.

Attachment 792

[Argoknot]

And let's not forget that by the time game 4 ended in Vancouver ... the country was totally against the team.

I get the point you're trying to make but I think against is the wrong word. Disappointed, let down, embarrassed, yes, but against, no. There were those in Vancouver who booed but I think that was for the reasons in the previous sentence and that they preferred the Soviet style to the style we had been playing to that point.

The more in depth reading I have been doing on this subject lately, the more impressed I am with what we did and less with what the Soviets did (or in this case didn't do.) They didn't adapt to the changing game, Canada did. I see the Soviets great individual skills as something akin to Brazilian soccer ball juggling, great to look at, but does it put the ball in the net?

There were two big myths about the series that were stated during and just after the series and then were dispelled, that I believe actually weren't myth but fact.

The first is that we didn't do well because we weren't in shape. That was the original excuse and was later somewhat morphed into the Soviets just having better skills and being generally better. But the fact was we weren't in any kind of shape after three weeks of training camp to even skate beside a team that trained eleven months of the year. Most of the games (until game six) we started well and ran out of gas. By that time we had figured out their set plays (that they never changed) and were finally fit enough to enable us to break down their plays and use ours.

The other excuse was that we weren't allowed to use WHA players which later morphed into (aside from Bobby Hull) they wouldn't have helped anyway. Bobby Hull, Gerry Cheevers, and JC Tremblay were all veterans invited for 72. In 1974, despite being two years older they were dominant versus the Soviets in the WHA series of 1974. Even though the WHA lost that series rather handily it was closer than people remember. The Soviets thought Cheevers was the best goalie they ever faced and they were amazed by Hull and Howe who were both excellent against them. In Tretiak's book he was very impressed by Tremblay. Had we have had Hull, Tremblay and Cheevers it would have been a different series, the poor fitness issue might have been lessened by those players who instinctively knew how to play the Russians. Where Dryden floundered in his first two games despite previous experience against them, Cheevers knew how to play them and his style fitted playing against them. I realize some will think that two years later those three players would have had a better "book" on the Soviets but those player's styles were a good match for the Russians as amazing was that of Howe.

I will withhold judgment on Derek Sanderson who was also invited. People forget what a great player he was (especially defensively) as it was about this time that his career and lifestyle seemed to be going off the rails so who knows what might have happened with him if he had played.

[OV Argo]

I get the point you're trying to make but I think against is the wrong word. Disappointed, let down, embarrassed, yes, but against, no. There were those in Vancouver who booed but I think that was for the reasons in the previous sentence and that they preferred the Soviet style to the style we had been playing to that point.

The more in depth reading I have been doing on this subject lately, the more impressed I am with what we did and less with what the Soviets did (or in this case didn't do.) They didn't adapt to the changing game, Canada did. I see the Soviets great individual skills as something akin to Brazilian soccer ball juggling, great to look at, but does it put the ball in the net?

There were two big myths about the series that were stated during and just after the series and then were dispelled, that I believe actually weren't myth but fact.

The first is that we didn't do well because we weren't in shape. That was the original excuse and was later somewhat morphed into the Soviets just having better skills and being generally better. But the fact was we weren't in any kind of shape after three weeks of training camp to even skate beside a team that trained eleven months of the year. Most of the games (until game six) we started well and ran out of gas. By that time we had figured out their set plays (that they never changed) and were finally fit enough to enable us to break down their plays and use ours.

The other excuse was that we weren't allowed to use WHA players which later morphed into (aside from Bobby Hull) they wouldn't have helped anyway. Bobby Hull, Gerry Cheevers, and JC Tremblay were all veterans invited for 72. In 1974, despite being two years older they were dominant versus the Soviets in the WHA series of 1974. Even though the WHA lost that series rather handily it was closer than people remember. The Soviets thought Cheevers was the best goalie they ever faced and they were amazed by Hull and Howe who were both excellent against them. In Tretiak's book he was very impressed by Tremblay. Had we have had Hull, Tremblay and Cheevers it would have been a different series, the poor fitness issue might have been lessened by those players who instinctively knew how to play the Russians. Where Dryden floundered in his first two games despite previous experience against them, Cheevers knew how to play them and his style fitted playing against them. I realize some will think that two years later those three players would have had a better "book" on the Soviets but those player's styles were a good match for the Russians as amazing was that of Howe.

I will withhold judgment on Derek Sanderson who was also invited. People forget what a great player he was (especially defensively) as it was about this time that his career and lifestyle seemed to be going off the rails so who knows what might have happened with him if he had played.

Can't believe you are mentioning Tremblay or Cheevers but make no mention of freakin' Bobby Orr being unable to suit up for Canada in 72 (IMO they win the series handily i - maybe 8 straight - if Orr was there in his prime) ; Orr was arguably the greatest hockey talent ever - he played basically on one leg for Canada in 76 and was the Canada Cup MVP on a team Canada that was (arguably) quite a bit better than the 72 squad, and is considered by some (myself included) to be the best hockey team ever.

[Argo57]

Can't believe you are mentioning Tremblay or Cheevers but make no mention of freakin' Bobby Orr being unable to suit up for Canada in 72 (IMO they win the series handily i - maybe 8 straight - if Orr was there in his prime) ; Orr was arguably the greatest hockey talent ever - he played basically on one leg for Canada in 76 and was the Canada Cup MVP on a team Canada that was (arguably) quite a bit better than the 72 squad, and is considered by some (myself included) to be the best hockey team ever.

Good point OV, WHA players weren't included in the selection process either, I'd also include my personal favourite Bobby Hull into the equation as well.

[Argoknot]

Orr was arguably the greatest hockey talent ever - he played basically on one leg for Canada in 76 and was the Canada Cup MVP on a team Canada that was (arguably) quite a bit better than the 72 squad, and is considered by some (myself included) to be the best hockey team ever.

You speak the gospel. I didn't mention Orr because he wasn't specifically excluded from the team and there was some hope he might have played in the series when they got to Moscow.

[OV Argo]

You speak the gospel. I didn't mention Orr because he wasn't specifically excluded from the team and there was some hope he might have played in the series when they got to Moscow.

Yes - Orr was injured.

Orr AND Bobby Hull on that 72 Team Canada and maybe they win that series quite handily - though the Russians may have shocked them for an early win or 2 with their different style play and far superior conditioning; Orr could control games - the Russians would not have had the puck near as much with Orr on the ice; and Hull was one of the all-time great goal scorers. Both those guys in their prime unable to suit up for Canada in 72 = incredible talent not there.