Heroes or Villains?

Like many Canadians, I was raised on the grand and glorious tales of the 1972 Summit Series. My dad first introduced it to us youngsters via a CBC special, one with all the highlights and interviews with some of the folks involved. And I have to be honest—I still get goosebumps when I watch clips of Henderson’s final game-winning goal.

However, I was also taught that the 1972 Canadian team was far from perfect. My Dad made it clear that what Bobby Clarke did to Kharlamov was wrong. He even went so far as to admit that Clarke’s slash was perhaps the most important stickwork in the series, more significant than Henderson’s goals. But even with that taint, we found it impossible not to admire the Canadians. They came out haughty, were soundly humiliated, and then persevered to battle back and win at the (literal) last moment.

These days, much of my reading has little (if any) good to say about 1972’s Team Canada. They blame that team for letting hockey continue its downward spiral into violence and for allowing Canadians to remain complacent while other nations surpassed us with their hockey skills. “If we hadn’t won,” they say, “Canadian hockey would have traded violence for skill much, much sooner.”

It’s a lot to think about, and I haven’t quite made up my mind what to think. Were they heroes or villains? When I have a son, should I teach him to admire them or instead hurriedly apologize for their low tactics? The truth is, it’s a complicated question with no easy answer.

Don Anderson, whose typo-ridden memoir Hockey That Changed the World and Me is one of the most delightful books I’ve read in the past year, has this to say about the 1972 “Team of the Century”:

This [The 1937-38 Trail Smoke Eaters] was the greatest team by far. Certainly the greatest could not be the 1972 team from Canada, where there were guys quitting and where Bobby Clarke broke Karmalnakov’s [sic] leg to slow the Russian team down. In my mind that was a dark hour. But also, they had a helluva time winning games in the series. I am still a solid Canadian hockey man, but not the 1972 team. (page 50)

Mistakes aside, there’s something to be said for Anderson’s reaction. We’ve idolized and extolled a team that didn’t deserve to win. But is that enough reason to demonize them?

The Death of Hockey

The Death of Hockey, or: How a Bunch of Guys With Too Much Money and Too Little Sense Are Killing the Greatest Game on Earth
by Jeff Z. Klein and Karl-Eric Reif

This book is ten years old and out of print, which means that most potential readers will likely pass it by. But that would be a mistake. Sure, some things have changed in the NHL since Klein and Reif wrote this book, but their key questions have yet to be answered.

More than anything, these two fans/sportswriters are arguing that hockey decisions should be made with hockey history and traditions in mind. As they point out with case story after case story, NHL executives and team owners often treating the game not as a sport but as a business. The result is that rules are introduced which hurt the sport and drive potential fans far, far away.

But this book doesn’t simply point out problems. Klein and Reif offer a solution, one that is actually quite simple. If we want to “save” hockey from being swallowed up by greedy businessmen or ruined by overprotective rules, then the answer lies in learning (or possibly re-learning) hockey history. Unless we know where we came from, we can’t hope to chart a good course for the future.

I do disagree with the authors’ assumption that US TV contracts are vital to the health of the game. That way of thinking, in my opinion, fails to avoid the owners’ mistake of approaching hockey as just another a business. If we try to save the game through more and more cash, chances are we won’t be able to look at them through the eyes of history and tradition.

But this book is a must-read. It addresses several poignant questions about the game (from fighting to expansion, logo design to the 1972 Summit Series), and if you love hockey, every single point/question they raise is worth thinking about.