Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 107

Thread: Is the World Cup dead?

  1. #51
    IHF Member Aldair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Brimsek
    Most football fans (and I'm a big one) will tell you that the FIFA rankings are considered a joke. Take the US for example. Most people won't argue that they are no longer an international pushover and can field a strong squad, but at one point they were ranked 7th or 8th in the world. As much as I'd like to believe that, I knew it wasn't true and so did most of the players. The system FIFA uses does not work very well -- I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
    Absolutelly right. Very unsuccesfull ranking system is used by FIFA.

  2. #52
    IHF Member Shardik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oulu/Raahe, Finland
    Posts
    4,651
    Quote Originally Posted by aldair1808
    Absolutelly right. Very unsuccesfull ranking system is used by FIFA.
    Not that I follow football closely but didn't FIFA just renew their ranking system? I remember that due to that Finland dropped 15-20 spots down so it seems to be more accurate...
    "Lord Baelish, what you suggest is treason."
    "Only if we lose."

    A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin

  3. #53
    IHF Member Aldair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Shardik
    Not that I follow football closely but didn't FIFA just renew their ranking system? I remember that due to that Finland dropped 15-20 spots down so it seems to be more accurate...
    Really? I don't know. I don't follow football closely more than two years already... :stupid: :blah: :hockey1:

  4. #54
    IHF Member Brimsek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Shardik
    Not that I follow football closely but didn't FIFA just renew their ranking system? I remember that due to that Finland dropped 15-20 spots down so it seems to be more accurate...
    The US ranking was pre-World Cup. Even if it was revised (I truly don't know if it was or wasn't) the rankings have been screwy for years. I'm not sure if one revision would set it all straight.
    Buffalo Sabres: TPS : Milwaukee Admirals

  5. #55
    IHF Member Tokyo Bucks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,383
    Yeah, the new FIFA ranking system seems more realistic, Japan dropped down about 20 spots as well, and rightly so.

    The old raking system gave too many points for matches in weak regions like Asia and CONCACAF (North and Central America) probably due to vote winning political reasons.

  6. #56
    IHF Member kun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,232
    At the risk at sounding as a pundit or an foolish fan. I'm going to give out my opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by takharov
    This tournament is worthless.The Olympic tourney should be made the premier event with a 4x4 format .

    Theres is no need for this Cup in any case with the hectic schedules players are under & makes it more likely when it is scrapped players will ask the NHPLA to vote in favor of continued Olympic participation.
    Since your from the UK, I'll speak in terms of passion. Non-EPL fans and other league followers could argue the FA Cup is worthless. Despite what the NHL has done to the name, this tournament is prestigious in Canada and has a lot of history. The average Canadian enjoys as much hockey as they can get and this tournament is in the hearts of all Canadians. It may be worthless to you, but it's not worthless to us. Furthermore, some people argue why should NHL players even play in the Olympics. It is after all an amateur event and there is talk about going back to the way it use to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by pihinalle
    World Cup is a very exciting tournament and some people seem to underrate it. Actually WC 2004 was closer to best-on-best tournament than these Olympics. Also the schedule in the WC was more rational although there was lots of travelling. That WC would have easily been the best tournament ever if it was played in one country and so all the teams would have been given the same chances to succeed. I hope they change these things and keep arranging this great tournament.
    I agree with everything you said. Especially with WC 2004 being one of the best tournaments in a long time. WC 2004 was even better than the Olympics of 2002 in terms of overall excitement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses
    Get out of here. The WCOH 2004 doesn't even compare with the Canada Cups of 87 and 76 (and 81 for that matter). I never liked the WCOH, the tounament is too short, I don't like the setup with a European and North American group, and I do agree that the tournament should be played in Canada only. Finally, it should be re-dubbed to Canada Cup again. NHL has had some nerve calling the tournament the World Cup. It shows a lot of disrespect for the IIHF and the World Championships.
    It won't compare to the 87 or 76 series, but it doesn't mean it's not good. The fact that the tournaments are 'too short' is fine also. I'm not sure what the geographical location has to do with the tournament, but I do know it should only be played in Canada and given it's original name back: "The Canada Cup"

    The NHL Board of Govenors mostly American presumably changed the name. If they are going to call it the World Cup of Hockey and then decide to scrap it, they better as hell take the IIHF World Championship more seriously and send better players. I don't see how the IIHF Worlds Championships are any better than the Canada Cup in terms of quality.

  7. #57
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by a3r3z
    Furthermore, some people argue why should NHL players even play in the Olympics. It is after all an amateur event and there is talk about going back to the way it use to be.
    Not true. The original Olympic ideal was to have the best in the world compete against each other. That was evolved into an amateur ideal only because certain countries economies were making some of the sports uncompetitive because it was too difficult to emigrate and ply your trade in another country. Because that is no longer the case, the amateur only rule was dropped to go back to the original ideal.

    Ice hockey is not the only Olympic sport to go down this route. Professional cyclists have competed since 1996. Professional tennis players have competed since 1988.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  8. #58
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    Quote Originally Posted by a3r3z
    ......Furthermore, some people argue why should NHL players even play in the Olympics. It is after all an amateur event and there is talk about going back to the way it use to be......
    Another reason for amateurism during the early Modern Olympics was because it's founder, Pierre de Coubertin was an elitist.

    Also, you talk about re-making the hockey tournament as an amateur event:
    • The Olympics, as Graham mentioned, are about the 'Best of the World' - why should Tennis, Basketball, Soccer, Handball, Volleyball etc be able to use professionals, but not hockey?
    • Tell me where you are going to find amateur (ie, non-paid, non-professional) hockey players to represent all the countries involved......if any still exist....
    There is no such thing as a "Bad Hockey Market"
    There are, however, several markets with "Bad Hockey"

    International Hockey Forums on Social Media:
    https://twitter.com/ihf_forums
    https://www.facebook.com/ihf.forums

  9. #59
    IHF Member Tokyo Bucks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,383
    Soccer has pros, but it's a U23 tournament with 3 overagers. As interesting as it would be, I'd rather not see this in hockey though. I prefer the current best on best format with players in midseason form (just gotta do something about the packed schedule).

  10. #60
    IHF Member kun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,232
    Graham:

    But I take it the majority of the Olympics amateurs still compete; yet, while they are considered amateurs they are the best in the World. Take for instance Figure Skating, they are considered amateurs (I think, unless somethings changed- there always seems to be), and once a skater goes pro, they can't enter the Olympic events if my memory serves me right. Wikipedia has an entry on Amateur-Pro topic, I'll read it after, frankly it's a bit confusing how the precedents are set in today's modern sport. I would gather that certain individual sports are exceptions to the rule, because I've been spoon fed my entire life that 'amateurs' compete in the Olympics and then go Pro...... hmm...

    Jazz:

    It's actually being proposed that after the 2010 Olympics, they might go back to the 'amateur' style event. And that's what the called it prior to the NHL players joining in 1998 "amateur".

    Well I don't know the answer to your question Jazz, it seems the world of hockey these days requires a degree in Jack Johnson to figure things out.

    Tell me where you are going to find amateur (ie. non-paid, non-professional) hockey players to represent all the countries involved......if any still exist....
    I was too young to know the aesthetics during the time with the situations of the players in `88,`92,`94, but Canada sent junior players player, university players, the Americans did the same thing. I think Europe was the same case. Technically it's considered amateur, because they are young and inexperienced. Canada wasn't sending 44 year olds to the event, but 20 year old kids.

    Anyway the history of amateurism/pro's in the Olympics is not something I don't care to discuss, but please feel free to correct or explain things as they are.
    Last edited by kun; 28-12-2006 at 12:01.

  11. #61
    IHF Member kun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokyo Bucks
    Soccer has pros, but it's a U23 tournament with 3 overagers. As interesting as it would be, I'd rather not see this in hockey though. I prefer the current best on best format with players in midseason form (just gotta do something about the packed schedule).
    EDIT

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur

    It mentions Amateur has two connotations. Does that mean anything?

    Also , Tokyo Bucks, it mentions this about soccer in the Olympics:

    Where this can be interesting is in the case of the Olympic Games. Until the 1970s, most Olympic events required that the athletes be amateurs. To receive pay to perform the sport disqualified an athlete from an event, as in the case of Jim Thorpe. Such regulations have now been relaxed for all Olympic sports, with the exception of boxing and soccer.
    Last edited by kun; 28-12-2006 at 12:22.

  12. #62
    IHF Member Shardik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oulu/Raahe, Finland
    Posts
    4,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz
    Another reason for amateurism during the early Modern Olympics was because it's founder, Pierre de Coubertin was an elitist.
    This is what I hear was the original reason for amateurism. Not de Coubertin specifically but that the aristocrats (and rich folks in general) wanted to keep the lower-class people out of the games. While rich people could train hard daily not doing much (if any) actual work and still take no money from being an athlete, the poorer couldn't. For regular people the only feasible way to become an olympic level athlete was to make it his profession.
    "Lord Baelish, what you suggest is treason."
    "Only if we lose."

    A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin

  13. #63
    IHF Member Shardik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oulu/Raahe, Finland
    Posts
    4,651
    Quote Originally Posted by a3r3z
    I was too young to know the aesthetics during the time with the situations of the players in `88,`92,`94, but Canada sent junior players player, university players, the Americans did the same thing. I think Europe was the same case. Technically it's considered amateur, because they are young and inexperienced. Canada wasn't sending 44 year olds to the event, but 20 year old kids.
    If the olympics go back to amateurs I'll loose almost all of my interest in them. If I want to see 20 year old kids and students compete, I watch the Universiads.
    "Lord Baelish, what you suggest is treason."
    "Only if we lose."

    A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin

  14. #64
    IHF Member Brimsek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by a3r3z
    Such regulations have now been relaxed for all Olympic sports, with the exception of boxing and soccer.
    [/I]
    That's not correct regarding soccer then. You can be a professional in the Olympics -- as TB noted it's simply restricted to u23 with 3 overage players.

    Argentina won the Men's gold in Athens 2004. German Lux the goalkeeper for that squad was already playing professionally for River Plate in Argentina. Roberto Ayala was an over age on the squad playing for Valencia of Spain at the time. Carlos Tevez was playing for Boca. And so on.
    Buffalo Sabres: TPS : Milwaukee Admirals

  15. #65
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    It wasn't that Coubertin only wanted amateurs. His elitist ideal meant that he only wanted gentlemen, and he did not consider the majority of professionals gentlemen. As a result, the Olympics has never been an amateur-only event. Fencing has always allowed professionals because professional fencing instructors were still deemed to be gentlemen.

    But, in the 1970s, the IOC formally dropped it's amateur clauses from the Olympic Charter. After that, it was entirely up to the international federations of the individual sports to decide. The only sport left that does not allow professionals is boxing. But even then, boxers are allowed to win cash prizes which violate the majority of amateur definitions in other sports, so they aren't perhaps true amateurs anyway.

    FIFA decided on the U-23 + 3 overage rule to ensure the Olympics didn't diminish the World Cup's importance. The rule was never asked for by the IOC, themsleves.

    Figure skating went professional at the Olympics in 1993 (or rather the decision was made in 1993). Torvill & Dean turned professional after their 1984 win, and were therefore ineligible for the 1988 and 1992 games. They competed as professionals in 1994, winning bronze.

    Ice hockey has allowed pros for years. It used to be that any player who had played less than 10 games in the NHL was allowed to compete for their country, but that still means that you are a professional, albeit probably a very young one. In 1984, there was controversy around the selection of 3 Canadian pros. If memory serves correctly from speaking with one of the involved (Mark Morrison), Canada believed the player had to play 10 or more NHL games in a season (due to definitions around player rights in that league), other federations believed the player had to only have played 10 or more NHL games in their career. Morrison played 11 games, but never more than 9 in one season. As a result, Canada dropped him from the team.

    Therefore, it's not true to say that the 1998 Games were the first pro hockey Olympics. It's just that for some time, the IIHF were using the number of games played in the NHL as a qualification criteria. Look at the Swedish and Finnish Olympic teams of the 1970s and 1980s, and see how many games they were playing in the professional Elitserien and SM-Liiga prior to Olympic selection.

    Nagano was merely the first games where the NHL agreed to shut down and allow the worlds best pros play, as even by then NHL games played no longer counted. For example, in the 1994 games, Nedved despite having played nearly 200 NHL games, played for Canada because he wasn't playing for an NHL team at the time.

    Therefore, professional ice hockey in the Olympics should not be looked upon as something that has only recently started.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  16. #66
    IHF Staff Trim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Xingping, Shaanxi Province, China
    Posts
    3,110
    Sean Burke played in 1988 for Canada, professionals were allowed beginning that year. I don't know who he played for or if he was holding out for a contract, but I remember reading that somewhere. He wasn't the only pro, as I recall.

    Even if a player had more than 10 games in the NHL, there are other pro leagues in the world at the times. All depends on how you look at it.
    Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!

    I'm the hole formerly known as KazakhEagles

  17. #67
    IHF Member kun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Brimsek
    That's not correct regarding soccer then. You can be a professional in the Olympics -- as TB noted it's simply restricted to u23 with 3 overage players.

    Argentina won the Men's gold in Athens 2004. German Lux the goalkeeper for that squad was already playing professionally for River Plate in Argentina. Roberto Ayala was an over age on the squad playing for Valencia of Spain at the time. Carlos Tevez was playing for Boca. And so on.
    I know, I watched every game. :claphands

    Quote Originally Posted by Graham
    Therefore, professional ice hockey in the Olympics should not be looked upon as something that has only recently started.
    Now that I recall what was said more clearly , it was not allowing NHL players to participate in the NHL, which would mean getting players from other leagues. I don't remember amateur being used, but I know from watching the Olympics in `92, `94 that a lot of players were drafted or still playing junior. If memory serves me right juniors in hockey don't get played for playing in the CHL or in University, which would classify them as amateur. Also drafted players are just drafted, have not been offered a contract, so they are still amateur.

    That's the way i see those years anyway.

  18. #68
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by a3r3z
    Now that I recall what was said more clearly , it was not allowing NHL players to participate in the NHL, which would mean getting players from other leagues. I don't remember amateur being used, but I know from watching the Olympics in `92, `94 that a lot of players were drafted or still playing junior. If memory serves me right juniors in hockey don't get played for playing in the CHL or in University, which would classify them as amateur. Also drafted players are just drafted, have not been offered a contract, so they are still amateur.

    That's the way i see those years anyway.
    The fact that 92 and 94 had a lot of junior players was nothing to do with an amateur requirement. It was simply that the North American leagues refused to release players for the event.

    See my example of Petr Nedved in 1994 for Canada. He was in a contract dispute with Vancouver with what should have been his 4th full season in the NHL (played 222 games in his first 3). In 1988, the rule had been dropped that would have made him ineligible. However, that rule being dropped only benefited out of contract players/contract hold outs or players who were now playing in a European pro league after an NHL career of more than 10 games.

    It wasn't until 1998 when the NHL agreed to shut down that the rule change was able to finally deliver it's full potential by turning into a true elite competition.

    I also don't understand the logic in a half-way house by having an Olympic competition that allows pros, but not those playing in the top league. At least if you have a true amateur tournament you give it a purpose. But what does the Olympics become if you let everyone but the North American pro leagues play? "The best 2nd best players in the world?" That would just turn it into the UEFA Cup of ice hockey. And with the amount of competition for Olympic sport places, would put ice hockey in a less strong position to stay in the tournament.

    I understand what the North Americans in here are saying, that the World Cup was an important event in their territories. But, it wasn't in Europe. But, for me, the biggest problem is that it never would be for a marginal ice hockey country. Ice hockey needs to grow, and that holds true for every level including the NHL.

    30 arenas with an average capacity of say 18,000 (sounds about right, but haven't worked it out) over 82 games means that the NHL can only ever have 22,140,000 people watching their sport live each regular season. And that is not a distinct number of people. Most of those will watch more than 1 game. A large number will watch most of the games. That's pretty low for a finite number that is difficult to expand.

    So, the NHL needs to move into TV. Something that it has been especially poor in doing. But it is not just North American TV that it needs. It needs global TV. The NFL and NBA get reasonable coverage in Europe, even in countries where neither sport is particularly strong (e.g. United Kingdom). That's what the NHL needs. And what better way of doing it by having a tournament that effectively becomes a showcase of NHL talent? Mesmerised watching the battle between Niittymaki and Afinogenov? Make sure you don't miss the next Philly-Buffalo match...

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  19. #69
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Huittinen, Finland
    Posts
    463
    Hello you all!

    Ever since there has been a Canada/World Cup, there has been a discussion every now and then, if the IIHF tournament should be removed to fall.

    If that ever happens, there is simply no use for a World Cup anymore! :(

    All the best
    Jukka

  20. #70
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    A3r3z:

    'Amateur' status has always been a joke in Olympic hockey, as early as the 1960's.

    Why was the 1980 Miracle on Ice such a miracle, especially the victory against Russia in the semifinals?

    The answer is because Herb Brooks took a bunch of American amateurs - true amateurs in that they were university hockey players - and drove them to the gold against teams of European professionals. The Communist countries of the time (Russia, Czechosolvakia) had professional ice hockey leagues in every sense of the word - and their Olympic squads had the best of the best from those leagues. However, because the Communist governments paid their players in "stipends" and "benefits," they were still considered "amateur."

    Even though it was a bad joke to anyone with a brain.

    As you know, Soviet elite league hockey in the 1960's until the end of the 1980's was as good or better than the NHL (at least the top Soviet league teams were as good or better than the NHL, anyhow). So for a bunch of true amateurs to beat them was truly, and remains, a miracle.

  21. #71
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Huittinen, Finland
    Posts
    463
    Hello Marc!

    You are correct. But what was the price? I mean, they knew each other better than their wives, spending 330 days together. :(

    All the best
    Jukka

  22. #72
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    Jukka, you're right. It was a very hard life. My point is that the Europeans playing in the Olympics were pros, even though they were called amateurs.

    Welcome to the forum, by the way! :023:

  23. #73
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Mission, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1
    For me the biggest tournament of the year is the World Juniors. Hell I play hooky from work, wake up at 3am to watch games.. I do whatever I can to ensure I don't miss a minute of play. I think a lot of Canadian's feel the same way. If I was to grade tournaments / playoffs in order of enjoyability it would be:

    1) World Juniors
    2) Olympics
    3) NHL Playoffs (Nothing better then staying up till 2am and watching a game in quadruple OT, and players legs are like jello and they're falling all of the ice :))
    4) World Championships
    5) World Cup

    Graham: Unfortunately hockey will never really grow like wildfire because its too expensive to play. I never played hockey growing up because my parents could never afford to throw away a grand or more a year per sibling for us to play, not to mention having to buy equipment ever few years. So I ended playing sports like Baseball, Basketball which had fields/courts everywhere and you could play without having to spend a ton of cash and booking time to use them.
    Last edited by travdes; 16-01-2007 at 02:01.

  24. #74
    IHF Member leksandstars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lidköping, Sweden
    Posts
    293
    Shouldnt it be a World cup of hockey in September this year or 2009??

  25. #75
    IHF Member Spitfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by leksandstars View Post
    Shouldnt it be a World cup of hockey in September this year or 2009??
    You mean this year??? Because last WC was in September 2004.

  26. #76
    IHF Member leksandstars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lidköping, Sweden
    Posts
    293
    Yeah isnt it gonna be WC of hockey anymore..

  27. #77
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    The World Cup will remain on hiatus until the NHL and the NHLPA resolves if they will or will not pull out of the Olympics
    There is no such thing as a "Bad Hockey Market"
    There are, however, several markets with "Bad Hockey"

    International Hockey Forums on Social Media:
    https://twitter.com/ihf_forums
    https://www.facebook.com/ihf.forums

  28. #78
    IHF Member Alessandro Seren Rosso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    2,991
    To be honest doing the World cup instead of Olympics would be one of the lamest things ever
    My articles at The Hockey Writers

  29. #79
    IHF Member leftofcenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hörstel, Germany
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    To be honest doing the World cup instead of Olympics would be one of the lamest things ever
    I may be one of the few here to think this but to me the Olympics have been proven to be lame (overhyped and an economic, social, and environmental disaster fro hosting cities) - it's just a marketing wet-dream that's all. The World Championship is a better tournament but just needs to scheduled so that all the best pro players in the world can play for their countries.


    The World Championships answer one key question - what country is the best each year. The Olympics don't really say anything of substance to me - apart from guranteeing a career in motivational speaking engagements and being a spokesperson for some company that sponsored you, if you win the gold medal

  30. #80
    IHF Member Alessandro Seren Rosso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by leftofcenter View Post
    it's just a marketing wet-dream that's all.
    Oh well, what is Sidney Crosby then?
    My articles at The Hockey Writers

  31. #81
    IHF Member leftofcenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hörstel, Germany
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Oh well, what is Sidney Crosby then?
    That's really funny.

  32. #82
    IHF Member rusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rezekne
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    Ice hockey is not the only Olympic sport to go down this route. Professional cyclists have competed since 1996. Professional tennis players have competed since 1988.
    Graham.
    add NBA Dream Team 1992 and the one that recently got ''only'' bronze in 2004 basketball tournament, huh, even some footballers join in for their Olympic teams now....
    So i's not an amateur show anymore.

  33. #83
    IHF Member rusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rezekne
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Oh well, what is Sidney Crosby then?
    Cristiano Ronaldo of hockey

  34. #84
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by rusher View Post
    even some footballers join in for their Olympic teams now....
    Football is slightly different. Professional players have been allowed in since the 1984 Olympics, but the list of eligible players is still restricted. The 1984 and 1988 Olympics did not allow any European or South American player who had already competed in the World Cup to play. Since the 1992 Olympics, the tournament has effectively become the u23 World Cup with each team allowed only 3 players who are 23 years old or older. So, it's not quite the same as the other sports that have become fully professional in the Olympics.

    Quote Originally Posted by rusher View Post
    So i's not an amateur show anymore.
    I think too much is made of the "amateur" rule that existed. It was always meant to be a showcase for the best, but Pierre de Coubertin wanted only gentlemen to compete and at that time it was felt that only amateurs were gentlemen. One exception was fencing instructors who were allowed to compete for a while. As the blurring between amateur and professional started, I think the reason for the amateur rule was lost and got corrupted into some other cause.

    There is also still one sport that does not allow professionals; boxing. That said, the definition of an amateur boxer is not based upon payment, but rather the rules under which they fight.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  35. #85
    IHF Staff Steigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    8,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Oh well, what is Sidney Crosby then?
    one hell of a skilled hockey player.

  36. #86
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    Getting back on topic, I think the World Cup is dead.

    I also think that's an unfortunate thing, because it was a true best-on-best tournament.

    Granted, the Olympics with NHL participation eliminates the need for the World Cup, but, if the NHL pulls out of the Olympics, then the World Cup should definitely be held.

    The reason is that the IIHF World Championships do NOT answer the question of which nation is the best, since none of the elite nations have their best possible rosters as a result of the IIHF World Campionship tournament being held at NHL playoff time.

    If the NHL does pull out of the Olympics, it will need to market the hell out of the World Cup - only HARDCORE American hockey fans even remember such a tournament ever existed. The casual fan in America has no clue what it is. Europeans also don't care, and the World Cup would need to be marketed there as a best-on-best event. If marketed correctly, the World Cup could certainly be successful in America at least - the 1996 World Cup captured the imagination of American hockey fans, and there was a real buzz about it in New York at the time. I watched the U.S. defeat Russia and Slovakia at Madison Square Garden, and there were sold out crowds that cared about the games a great deal.

  37. #87
    IHF Member Alessandro Seren Rosso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber View Post
    if the NHL pulls out of the Olympics, then the World Cup should definitely be held.
    But why? WTF you're too good to play with IIHF rules?

    The reason is that the IIHF World Championships do NOT answer the question of which nation is the best
    The olympics do. World Cup doesn't

    The casual fan in America has no clue what it is. Europeans also don't care, and the World Cup would need to be marketed there as a best-on-best event. If marketed correctly, the World Cup could certainly be successful in America at least
    Do a canada - america series then, you can use what rules you want and no one will moan about them.
    Sorry for the harsh language Marc, but i don't like this kind of speech
    My articles at The Hockey Writers

  38. #88
    IHF Member Alessandro Seren Rosso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Steigs View Post
    one hell of a skilled hockey player.
    He's more a money machine that a skilled hockey player. And don't get me wrong, I still believe that he's a good player
    My articles at The Hockey Writers

  39. #89
    IHF Staff Trim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Xingping, Shaanxi Province, China
    Posts
    3,110
    Another point about holding another World Cup is with the revised post-lockout NHL rules package. How well would it be then? Of course, they aren't remotely calling the games as tight as the first month after the return, but still...

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber
    The reason is that the IIHF World Championships do NOT answer the question of which nation is the best, since none of the elite nations have their best possible rosters as a result of the IIHF World Campionship tournament being held at NHL playoff time.
    I think the idea of having a "best of the best" tournament is a bit off the beam though. Realistically, every country will have players who don't want to play or are injured and miss the event regardless of which tournament it is. More players are available in the summer than February or May, I agree. This also goes for the fringe nations in the IHWCs.

    Use the World Cup as an Olympic teaser event, I don't care, but just bring it back.
    Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!

    I'm the hole formerly known as KazakhEagles

  40. #90
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    But why? WTF you're too good to play with IIHF rules?
    I think that is unfair. There are two big differences between the Olympics and the World Cup from an NHL point of view.

    The first is the timing. It is far easier for the NHL to have a World Cup before their season starts than to have an Olympics mid-season. Logistics are easier, particularly compared to an Olympics that are in a different continent as will happen in 2014. Also, the 2006 and 2010 All-Star game were/have been cancelled due to the Olympics removing a revenue generator for the NHL. You don't need to do that for a World Cup.

    The second is who earns the revenue. With the Olympics, the NHL has to shut down so someone else can directly earn the revenue. With the World Cup, all money goes into the NHL piggy bank.

    Personally, I think the advantages of NHL participation in the Olympics outweigh any disadvantages. For a start, it is a great way for the NHL to showcase itself to other markets outside of the NHL. This should indirectly increase it's revenue from those countries, both in terms of merchandise and in terms of TV deals. Of course, the NHL doesn't have a good record of thinking along those lines, which is why I think my two earlier points are so important in the argument.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  41. #91
    IHF Member kun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    He's more a money machine that a skilled hockey player. And don't get me wrong, I still believe that he's a good player
    I'm sorry, and I don't usually answer this way, but that's an absurd statement. Ovechkin is a money machine here to, and his year wasn't better than Crosby last year, that doesn't make him skilled? Crosby is an excellent hockey player, and anyone that thinks he is just a money machine is just a hater.

    I didn't like Ovechkin for two seasons, (always supported Malkin more), because of his attitude but this year he really grew on me, because I got to see more of his humble and genuine side. The same thing with Bure/Mogilny/Fedorov. I enjoyed Fedorov more than the others, and Bure 2nd because I never found Moginly approachable. Granted, all 3 were great hockey players. Point is don't hate just because you have to hate.

    (I pulled an all niter so my writing is not so good)

  42. #92
    IHF Member leftofcenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hörstel, Germany
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by kun View Post
    I'm sorry, and I don't usually answer this way, but that's an absurd statement. Ovechkin is a money machine here to, and his year wasn't better than Crosby last year, that doesn't make him skilled? Crosby is an excellent hockey player, and anyone that thinks he is just a money machine is just a hater.

    I didn't like Ovechkin for two seasons, (always supported Malkin more), because of his attitude but this year he really grew on me, because I got to see more of his humble and genuine side. The same thing with Bure/Mogilny/Fedorov. I enjoyed Fedorov more than the others, and Bure 2nd because I never found Moginly approachable. Granted, all 3 were great hockey players. Point is don't hate just because you have to hate.

    (I pulled an all niter so my writing is not so good)
    Don't go here Kun - it's not worth it.... and it only feeds the anti-Sid machine

  43. #93
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    Alessandro -

    I'm surprised by your outburst towards me. Where in my post did I come across as "too good for the IIHF"? I'll answer that - I didn't.

    Supporting the World Cup is not being anti-IIHF. It is possible to enjoy both, and I do.

    My point was that, due to when the IIHF Worlds are held each year, it is not a best-on-best tournament, and, if the NHL does in fact pull out of the Olympics, there would be a true need for the World Cup if you are interested in a best on best tournament - which I think most hockey fans would be, especially if it is marketed correctly.

    As I said in the Rangers-Penguins thread, while I am the first to say that Sidney Crosby is a whiner and a diver, I also acknowledged that he is the best hockey player in the world today. He is certainly not the best pure goal scorer; not even close. On an all-around basis taking into account all facets of the game, nobody can touch him, and that makes him the best. With that said - go Flyers.

  44. #94
    IHF Member Alessandro Seren Rosso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber View Post
    Alessandro -

    I'm surprised by your outburst towards me.
    I apologized earlier, i apologize again.

    Supporting the World Cup is not being anti-IIHF. It is possible to enjoy both, and I do.
    I jumped off my seat when i read no-nhlers-to-olympics. I'd be okay with both too, like every hockey fan


    As I said in the Rangers-Penguins thread, while I am the first to say that Sidney Crosby is a whiner and a diver, I also acknowledged that he is the best hockey player in the world today.
    Well, one can agree or not on this topic. Top 10? Yes. Clear number one? No, in today's hockey there is no clear number one.
    My articles at The Hockey Writers

  45. #95
    IHF Member Alessandro Seren Rosso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by kun View Post
    I'm sorry, and I don't usually answer this way, but that's an absurd statement. Ovechkin is a money machine here to, and his year wasn't better than Crosby last year, that doesn't make him skilled? Crosby is an excellent hockey player, and anyone that thinks he is just a money machine is just a hater.

    I didn't like Ovechkin for two seasons, (always supported Malkin more), because of his attitude but this year he really grew on me, because I got to see more of his humble and genuine side. The same thing with Bure/Mogilny/Fedorov. I enjoyed Fedorov more than the others, and Bure 2nd because I never found Moginly approachable. Granted, all 3 were great hockey players. Point is don't hate just because you have to hate.
    At first i ask how can one like players one season yes and one season not. Anyhow, i didn't say he's just a money machine. I only said he's a big one. And that's undeniable.

    About the hate: i don't like Jarome Iginla. Does this make me a hater? Don't think so. Why if I don't like Sidney Crosby I automatically turn into a hater?
    My articles at The Hockey Writers

  46. #96
    IHF Member leftofcenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hörstel, Germany
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber View Post
    - go Flyers.

    Hey MarcB - I was wondering if you were really going to cheer for the new Broad Street Bullies. Man, that either takes some love of their style or some kinda "dislike" for Pitt...

  47. #97
    IHF Member Ref72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    945
    I would not miss the World Cup if the powers that decide these things cancelled it for now. In the last one, I just could not get that excited (maybe I was spoiled by incredible hockey displayed in 1987 Canada Cup). It was somewhat laughable when the organizers tried to market that extremely weird looking trophy that looked more like a modern day garbage can, than a hockey trophy. You could even see the confused look on the Canadian players when they skated around with it after their victory....it was like they were saying "what do we do with this thing?" I say keep the NHL in the Olympics and scratch the world cup. I can relate to a gold, silver or bronze medal. Garbage can trophies just dont cut it.

  48. #98
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    576
    I hope its stone dead. The only real tournaments for national teams are The World Championship and the Olympics....I loved Canada Cup but I hate the World Cup becurse NHL try to sell it as the World championship insted of selling it as a tournament of its own.

  49. #99
    IHF Staff Trim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Xingping, Shaanxi Province, China
    Posts
    3,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Ref72 View Post
    It was somewhat laughable when the organizers tried to market that extremely weird looking trophy that looked more like a modern day garbage can, than a hockey trophy. You could even see the confused look on the Canadian players when they skated around with it after their victory....it was like they were saying "what do we do with this thing?" I say keep the NHL in the Olympics and scratch the world cup. I can relate to a gold, silver or bronze medal. Garbage can trophies just dont cut it.
    I would go back to a 3-game final, but yes, even the 1996 trophy was a bit of "what is this?" Why can't we use the old Canada Cup, if needed splitting the globe on the other side of the "split leaf" to make it 'worldly?'
    Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!

    I'm the hole formerly known as KazakhEagles

  50. #100
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    Would you guys like the World Cup if they used a classy looking trophy rather than the ugly piece of trash they used in the past? LOL

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •