Talk:Miracle on Ice

Do we need that many [citation needed] signs?

In the Soviet reaction section there are so many markers for citation needed that it disrupts the flow of the article. I believe we should remove them because there is already a notice saying that the section is lacking citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightbo (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

historical significance

There is no mention in the article of the wider historical impact. In February of 1980, the American mindset was still in a defeatist mode, regarding the Cold War, not to mention Iran. Herb Brooks was the first person in this era to remind Americans this trend could be reversed and the Soviets could be beaten. Ronald Reagan was the second person to do so, with still greater impact.

Oh Lord. Please don't bring Reagan into this. He had nothing to do with the Miracle on Ice. It's all about one amazing coach, and the team who followed him--Reagan had nothing to do with any of this, except that later on (that is, outside the scope of the article), he was able to capitalize/embody what many felt to be the meta-message of the game. (I do agree that that the Miracle on Ice had a larger cultural/historical impact, though.)72.229.110.85 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more of an emphasis on the historical significance of this game and the implications it held across the world. During this time, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two major powers of the world. With that being said, the defeat of the USSR most certainly had an effect on more countries than the United States. Because of this, I think that there should be a specific section that focuses on the broader impact the result of this game had on the world. To expand on this, I think it would be beneficial to try and gather the thoughts of players from both teams and how they felt before and after each game. I am curious as to how accurate the portrayal of the Soviet players is following their loss. I'm sure the players themselves were understandably dejected, but I wonder if the movie (being produced in America) maybe exaggerated how the Soviets felt!? All in all, the victory for the United States turned the tide of the Cold war in their favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyb230 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"near-impossible odds"

From the main article. Any data on what odds the US team were being quoted at to substantiate this claim?

33 to 1 were the odds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.132.190 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the Soviet team being professionals who lived in military barracks for 11 months out of the year and were world class dominate, compared to a bunch of college hockey players with the average age of 21, this is further made more "Impossible" by the fact the Soviet team beat an NHL All-Star team earlier that year in a best of 3 called the 1979 Challenge Cup. Gerwin74 (talk) Gerwin74 —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

U.S.-centric coverage

I have tagged this article with {{Template:Globalize}} because I believe it is written entirely from the American perspective. Andrew Levine 05:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, The Miracle on ice was a life changing event for the Americans. The only people who really care about this are the Americans. Sure the Soviets care about it but they don't go back to it and remember it like the day Sputnik went into orbit. We remember this day like we remember the day Neal Armstrong landed on the moon, JFK was assassinated, and September 11th, it is a life changing event. Why would you globalize the JFK assassination, you wouldn't it was an event that only the Americans felt the effects of. This issue should remain from an American perspective. Sincerely, My_hero_is_Mark_Johnson

I Michael Sherrow do believe it WAS a global news worthy event because if anyone recalls, The Soviet Union had won the Gold Medal in Hockey every time since 1960. I’m not going to get too in-depth, but the national attention pointed towards "The Cold War" was a big factor also... And by the way the JFK assassination was global news just as it is when any President, king, queen, or dictator is assassinated or attempted.

Title implies American perspective I also disagree that this needs to be globalized. "Miracle on Ice" is not so much about the American perspective, but about the American Hockey Team. Certainly, if the title of the article were "1980 US Olympic Hockey Team", there would be no expectation of detailed discussion of other hockey teams. On the other hand, if the title of the article were "US-USSR Olympic Medal Round Hockey Game, 1980" it should show both the US and USSR perspectives. Some articles will simply be about American events by Americans. The phrase "Miracle on Ice" probably means nothing to most of the world anyway. - David R 16:32, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a growing need to write about this event from the Soviet/Russian perspective:

Very few people now remember that at the time in Europe Olympic tournaments were ranked only 3rd among other major tournaments after games with NHL professionals (who were not allowed to play at the Olympics) and annual world championships (where profissionals were allowed since 1977). For the Soviets Olympic games were nothing but a longer version of a world championship with just more games against evident outsiders like Norway or Italy. Needless to say that between Squaw Valley and Lake Placid the Soviet team won it all (4 times) and after Lake Placid, too (3 times). 5 Soviet players are three-times Olympic champions, a record which could hardly be broken in the nearest future. Hadn't they slipped at Lake Placid there could have been at least 20 more of them! I must point out that this loss in the Soviet Union was treated as a tiny slip (I think it was). Of course, none on the team was somehow repressed. Speaking further of tournaments value, in 1981 the Soviet team won the Canada Cup and this victory was claimed a huge success.

Now it's easy to see that Herb Brooks and Team USA with "all-or-nothing" situation were much more motivated to win than their Soviet counterparts for whom Lake Placid was yet another tournament they ought to win. 4 years later in Sarajevo the USSR regained the title with Team USA remained only 7th.

Herb Brooks designed this short term team especially for Lake Placid. Naturally they were treated as underdogs, moreover as outsiders by major teams, so their victory was unexpected at all. Later in the Soviet press Brooks' efforts were truly appreciated but some comments ironically added that preparing a team for winning a short-term tournament is one thing and creating a long-term hockey machine is completely different. They also added that very few players succeeded in the NHL with Jim Craig playing only 23 games for the Boston Bruins.

To sum it up, the loss at Lake Placid for the USSR was not a crucial moment because no one in this world is capable of winning everything.

Igor Baltenkov--89.237.4.58 06:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"I must point out that this loss in the Soviet Union was treated as a tiny slip "

And that is part of the reason why the American point of view is valid. As was pointed out, the games with the NHL were the games with the world's best teams and the Soviets' proved that they would be amongst the best in the NHL. Looking at the US in terms of hockey, I believe it is around the 6th best hockey country in the world and it was not too different then. Also, these weren't even the best Americans. So the skill level difference is such that the 10-3 result from the before the Olympics was more in line with what should have been expected. However to say that the CCCP didn't care about the Gold Medal is frankly, absurd. As the following comment points out the propaganda value was widely used by the Soviet Bloc nations. How else would one explain the systemic and rigorous training and drugging employed by these nations? While it may just be another World Championship or and extension of one, it should have been important propaganda opportunity for the Soviets as it was on US soil and the Olympics were the only time the North American public cared about IIHF hockey (Canada may not have cared even in the Olympiads). So if they didn't think it was that important, it was a major miscalculation. Also, even if that is true, how is it that they could have been motivated enough to win a tune up game 10-3 and yet be so unmotivated for a chance at world domination that they could lose to a team so overmatched odds don't begin to quantify it. The criticism is that this team was built for the short term, and that is correct, but that was all Herb could do. He couldn't conscript the best players in the country to the army for their careers and build a team to beat them. Even if he could, he may not have been able to beat them. It was a one shot deal, no question. The defeat of the Soviets is certainly is the most remembered part of the tournament but by far not the only remarkable event. The first was the tie with Sweden, amazing that they even competed with them, second in the way they managed to eke out the tie. If the goal at 19:40 of the 3rd in that game doesn't go in and nothing else changes, CCCP wins Gold. The third was the defeat of Czechoslovakia. While not their best national team, this was a top team before 1980 and remains so to this day even with its breakup, like Russia. Herb Brooks said that 7-3 victory was "a coach's dream" and anything after was extra. And fourth was the victory over Finland. He built that team to have the opportunity to compete with the Soviets. He consistently belittled them during the preparatory period so that their egos were smashed to the point that all they could muster was a 10-3 loss to the Soviets in a game which the Soviets really didn't expend much effort so his speech before the CCCP game would have the maximum effect (not to mention to add to the Soviets almost complete disregard for the team). And yet when they accomplished that, after they reached that peak, they still had a game against a team that was better than them. It is not uncommon for giant-killers to lose the next game, simply because they play the next game closer to their median ability. If they had done that, which they did for two periods, CCCP wins Gold. Plus, Jim Craig stood on his head, if that doesn't happen, CCCP wins Gold. That's what makes it so amazing that it happened, and why sympathizers of the Soviet team will downplay the significance, but it had to have more importance than the game 2 weeks before.

Kevinskogg (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

B*llsh*t. Then why did they suppress the results? Why have the team come home in the middle of the night? The significance was overwhelming--a bunch of kids defeated the best hockey team in the world. The Soviets, as much as anyone, understood the propaganda value of the Olympic Gold Medal.72.229.110.85 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

: I also Disagree with tagging, based on nature of the article. Igor's point from a strictly sport point of view may be true, but it was a significant cultural event for the USA at the time that transcended mere sport and deemed in many US lists as the sports event of the century or decade. The US team was designed for the sole purpose of beating the Soviets in this one game and succeeded in frustrating a dominant Soviet team that had won 50 of it's previous 51 games. The fact that the Soviets were not used to being attacked with their own style of play was seen in their inexplicable failure to substitute an attacker for their goalie in the final minute when they were down by one goal. Having rarely been behind, they didn't know how to handle the situation.

Watch the openning titles and pay attention to the radio speech by President Carter in the movie Miracle to help understand the cultural significance. You're right, a team can't win every night. But as Herb Brooks told his team before the game "We can play the Soviets ten times and they may beat us nine times, but we can win tonight" And it was that one night win at the Olympics (which is the only non-NHL hockey event that most Americans ever watch) that made it the "Miracle on Ice" GCW50 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with tagging, based on nature of the article: Ice hockey at the 1980 Winter Olympics requires a neutral approach, as would a strict technical sporting discussion of the game itself, but a discussion of the American socio-cultural phenomenon that the US-USSR game became as the "Miracle on Ice" requires a US-focused approach. If you're going to tag this with Globalize, you might as well do the same for every domestic sporting competition worldwide, as well as most broadcast media, and a good chunk of the history articles. I'll add a bit of info on the Soviet team's reaction to the game itself once I get a chance to go back to the Coffey book for sourceable details, but remember that in the USSR public reporting and discussion of the match were essentially quashed by the authorities -- the result didn't exactly fit the superiority narrative that the CPSU had in mind for their Olympians. Once I do that, I'm going to remove the Globalize tag. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 15:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In general, I also disagree with that tagging, but I have to say it is noticable that of all the images on the article, only one of them even shows Soviet players at all. The Soviet aftermath section could maybe use a photo (if one exists) of the Soviet team on the ice immediately after the game ended, or possibly the Soviets receiving the silver medal at the awards ceremony. Also, a photo (if one exists) of the Soviet head coach or maybe the team on the bench during the game that represents their intensity or lack of emotion or whatever, would help balance the article a bit.--Kharker 15:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed merge

I disagree that this should be merged. That would be POV, as the term "Miracle on Ice" refers only to the American victory, not to the entire ice hockey competition. Plus, the Olympic ice hockey articles (should) have a consistent format, listing winners, scores, etc. and a brief summary of any important events. – flamurai (t) 20:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

At least all the information that was added around a day ago should be removed from Ice hockey at the 1980 Winter Olympics article as already existing in Miracle on Ice (the link to Miracle on Ice was there for a long time, but despite this someone decided to duplicate info).I totally agree, that the main info presented about Olympic Tournament should be:winners, scores, matches, venues, etc. Cmapm 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However, there should be a short summary of the Miracle on Ice in the 1980 article, with a link like Main article: Miracle on Ice. – flamurai (t) 20:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but a short summary not only of one match (as I understand, namely the final is called Miracle on Ice), a short summary of all the competition, accompanied at least by the results table. Cmapm 20:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Factual questions

There are a number of factual errors in this article. Firstly, the United States tiesd with Sweden 2-2 in the preliminary round of the Olymics and not Finland. Secondly, Ken Morrow did not play for the New Jersey Devils and was not a teammate of Fetisov and Kasatonov. He won his Stanley Cup titles as a member of the New York Islanders.

Okay, I can confirm one of these. An article states that Morrow skated over to Fetisov before an NHL game where Fetisov was playing for the Devils, but it does not indicate where Morrow was playing! This was one I misread. A quick check of Morrow's career places him with the Islanders, so I'll correct that. The other is more dicey - I read a source which said that Finland hadn't lost coming into the medal round, and they were in Group B with the U.S. meaning that the draw had to have been against the U.S. But I can't find the source now, and I've found one non-authoritative source (an email from a random) which supports a 2-2 draw with Sweden in the opening round. I'm going to call the library tomorrow and see if I can get confirmation. - Scooter 05:54, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Too much confusing information...why can't anybody just have the damn scores listed so I can write this article? I have a paper from the time which gives the score for the Sweden-Finland semi-final match as 3-3. Until I can get some better confirmation for any of this, I'm removing the disputed information. I just can't back it up, and it's very frustrating. - Scooter 06:07, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article says that in the medal round, each team would play each other team, but makes no mention of a USA-Sweden game. Did USA play Sweden in the medal round, and what was the result, or if not, why not?

• For teams which were in the same group in the preliminary round (USA-Sweden and Russia-Finland), their preliminary round game was counted in the medal round standings. USA tied Sweden 2:2 in the preliminary round. Should we explain that in the article? Andris 15:18, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Also, the article says the only team that couldn't win the Gold Medal going into the final day of games (that is to say, Feb. 24, after the USA/USSR game) was Finland. How is this the case? If USA had lost to Finland, and Sweden and USSR had tied, all teams would have had 3 points in the Medal Round (Sweden 0-0-3, others 1-1-1). I would think Sweden would be eliminated first due to having no actual wins, but in any event the tiebreaker would almost have to come down to goal differential and Finland could win that just as much as the other teams.

The tiebreaker was total goal differential (not just the medal round differential). The USSR came into the medal round beating teams like Japan and the Netherlands by double digits, and in fact wound up +40 in goal differential. So, unless Finland beat the US by a tremendous, record breaking score, they would in fact wind up with the silver medal.

The claim that the March 3, 1980 Sports Illustrated was the only cover in the magazine's history without any accompanying caption or headline is not correct. Issues in SI's first year of publication (1954) did not have a caption or headline - the first caption didn't appear until 5/16/55. SI covers for 1954 can be viewed at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/select/1954-01-01/1954-12-31/dd/1/index.htm Kshockeysteve (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Another factual issue . . . it is stated that after this game, the Soviets did not lose another international game until 1985. That figure apparently only includes the IIHF World Championships and the Olympics, but it's not true that they didn't lose any games because the Soviets lost one game in both the 1981 and 1984 Canada Cup tournaments. In the days before the Soviets could compete in the NHL, the Canada Cup was the only tournament where all countries could field their best teams without restriction so it was very important.Djob (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Miracle on Ice sports venue

I do not know what sports venue the Miracle on Ice game took place. Did Lake Placid have a sports arena or was the Ice Hockey venue temporary?

Lake Placid actually had two arenas for the 1980 Winter Olympics. Some games were played in the old arena built for the 1932 Games (known as the Olympic Rink), while others — including the medal round — were played in a new, larger arena (called the Olympic Arena). There was also a rink without seating that was used for practices, called the U.S. Ice Sheet. The 1932 rink is now called the Jack Shea Arena, while the 1980 facility is now named the Herb Brooks Arena. — Michael J 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Should there be an article about this Jack Shea Arena? It is not a well-known sports venue and I do not know what its seating capacity is. Jim856796 05:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Team Rosters

Does anyone know why the team rosters were deleted from this article? — Michael J 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like they got caught up in a multi-edit vandalism incident, and the user cleaning it up only caught the last one. Fixing now, and putting this on my watchlist. Other watchers, please check before you revert to make sure you're cleaning up all the vandalism rather than just the last edit. Thanks... VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Miracle on Ice" film

"A movie, Miracle on Ice, starring Karl Malden as Brooks and Steve Guttenberg as Craig, aired on television in 1981, and was released in theaters in 1989". This seems an unsually large gap between showing on TV and release in cinemas. The IMDB doesn't have release dates for the film; a Google search for the title and the year 1989 is fairly unimpressive (a few sites list it as "Miracle on Ice (1989)", with Guttenberg and Malden in the cast, but they are otherwise detail-free). Is there a poster somewhere, a review dated 1989? I can envisage it being re-released on account of the end of the Cold War, so it's not completely odd, but I think it needs elaboration. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Curt Chaplin radio broadcast

I've stumbled upon Curt Chaplin's radio recording of the US-USSR game. While Al Michael's calls were the more memorable one, is Chaplin's also notable for inclusion here? Eaglestorm (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the fact that it took a "stumbl[ing] upon" to note that it even existed is probably a sign that it's not notable. If it's online, it might be worth a link in the External Links section, but I wouldn't bother with text mentioning it in the body of the article. Michaels's call gave a name to the greatest moment in American sports history. Chaplin's, unfortunately for him, didn't. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok..It is, Chaplin posted on YouTube (found it here then other google links traced it too, he matched it along with the footage; here's the link [1])...which may not probably count, right? Eaglestorm (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd USA Goal Disputed by Soviet Players?

I have heard from someone who watched a documentary of the game that the 2nd Team USA goal at the very end of the first period was disputed by the Soviet players in retrospective interviews, that they claimed time had run out or should've run out before the goal was scored, that maybe there was a clock malfunction or something like that. Does anyone have info on that? If this is true, it should be added to the Soviet perspective.John ISEM (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've never heard anything about that. I would almost be surprised to run across something like that. In my experience, having seen shows and coverage of it, the Soviet players are nothing but extraordinarily gracious and sportsmanlike about the matter. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's soviets being jealous, it was reviewed and found to be within a full second of the period —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.226.237 (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hometowns

Ken Morrow is from Davison, MI. I grew up there and when you drive into the city, there is a sign that says "Davison, home of Ken Morrow". He is not from Flint, MI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.39.182 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

... hadn't seen so many flags since the '60s. "And we were burning them then"

I was quite impressed by this phrase from The Golden Goal:

A sister of one of the U.S. hockey players -- in between cries of "The Russians! I can't believe we beat the Russians!" -- said that she hadn't seen so many flags since the '60s. "And we were burning them then," she added.

I think it deserves to be a part this article.

One quote from the game. After Buzz Schneider scorded the first goal, somebody (Al Michaels or Ken Dryden) said about Tretyak: "There is some suspicion, that he realy is not in a very good form at this point". --Alogrin (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Box Score?

Is there no boxscore for this game? 67.193.244.48 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• You can get it from http://www.la84foundation.com/6oic/OfficialReports/1980/orw1980v2.pdf . BTW, one fact from that Olimpic statistics, is that Tretiak had the worst saving ratio for 11 playing goaltenders of top 6 teams — 84 % (42 out of 50). --Alogrin (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

I've added a few cleanup templates to the article, but a major issues is the use of YouTube as cited source. In particular, the game day section is drawn entirely from a WP:SYNTH of game footage. It should use written reports of the game instead. Mosmof (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

best team, or best amateur team?

The article says the Soviet team was "considered the best hockey team in the world". If I recall correctly, in 1980, professionals were still banned from the Olympics (though a lot of countries tended to bend that rule pretty hard). So were they really considered the best team, or the best amateur team? Would they have been expected to beat the NHL champs from that year? --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That claim certainly needs a citation but it would not be without merit. According to this article, the USSR team had beaten an NHL all star team in the Challenge Cup. In 1981, they beat a NHL-laden Canada 8-1 in the final of the Canada Cup. (The USSR's only win in that competition). In fact, the 1980 Olympics might be the only blip in what would otherwise be considered the hight of Soviet Ice Hockey. Anyway, it would be reasonable to assume that it was 'considered by some' to be the best but a citation is needed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly needs a citation. Added tag. --Brhiba (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Previous lead for the record

The material below was in the lead until an editor felt it was too much information. Personally, I think it acts as a good summary and introduction to a pretty long and highly detailed article. Just read the first paragraph after the current lead to understand that the average, non-hockey expert, might stop right there and easily feel overwhelmed by minute facts. Hence, a clear and general summary in the lead will help those who want the basics, and would stimulate others who choose to dig deeper. For those who feel that the lead may be too America-centric, note the article is about an American historical event. Using words like patriotic, etc., especially with the cites included, seems logical. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

thumb|right|The March 3, 1980 cover of Sports Illustrated, which, to this day, is the only one in the magazine's history to run without a caption or headline. The "Miracle on Ice" was a medal-round men's ice hockey game during the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid, New York, on February 22. The United States team, made up of amateur and collegiate players and led by coach Herb Brooks, defeated the Soviet team, which was considered the best hockey team in the world. It is considered by many as the "greatest upset in sports history."

Two weeks earlier, in an exhibition game at Madison Square Garden, the Soviet team badly beat the Americans, 10-3, and Brooks worried that the team's memories of that humiliating defeat would haunt them. Brooks recalled, "Our guys were applauding the Soviets when they were introduced," and to many fans "they were legends." What added to the emotionalism of fans before and after the game were the global political circumstances at the time: John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khruschev had engaged in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Cold War nuclear arms race was becoming more dangerous. The game therefore held much symbolism for the public.

Team USA went on to win the gold medal by winning their final match over Finland, who finished 4th. When the game ended, "all of America rejoiced," writes ESPN sports network. "Euphoria reigned." After leaving the arena, fans banged on the bus as the players stepped aboard, and the team began singing. Nationwide, "People wept, strangers hugged each other, and groups around the country broke into stirring renditions of 'God Bless America'," a song written, ironically, by Russian-born songwriter, Irving Berlin. (Watch final minute)

The Soviet Union took the silver medal by beating Sweden in their final game. As part of its 100th anniversary celebrations in 2008, the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) chose the Miracle on Ice as the number-one international hockey story of the century.

References

Deleted image Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 9#File:Miracle on Ice - podium.jpg

I think, that the image of the whole team, which managed to stand on the small podium - is very significant for this article. It helps to understand the spirit of US team, the one which played so important role during the olympic tournament. No words would be able to explain, how 20 players were able to step there: [2] . --Alogrin (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

U-S-A! U-S-A!

The story that the chant originated here seems to be a myth. See here. And the part about "national pride" was nonverifiable and non-encyclopedic so I deleted that too. Vidor (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Russia

Players of the USSR national team were not born in Russia, in the USSR. Sorry, I dont know English i just used a translator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.219.193 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

American request to move game

"After the Soviets declined a request to move the game from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. for U.S. television (this would have meant a 4 a.m. start in Moscow for Soviet viewers), ABC decided to broadcast the late-afternoon game on tape delay in prime time. " As opposed to a 1 am start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntiger1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No mention of game result in Pravda? Coffey?

The statement that the result was not mentioned in Pravda is wrong. I was a university student majoring in Russian at the time of the game. The university had a subscription to Pravda and there definitely was an article about the game entitled "Like a Bad Dream".

The only cite for the statement that "Pravda did not mention the game in its daily issue nor for that matter in its Lake Placid wrap-up" is footnote 56, which states, "Coffey, p. 413." Who or what is Coffey? This is first cited in footnote 3, but the full cite is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.104.149 (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide the link to the Pravda article, that would be great. Until then, we'll have to go with the information we have. BTW, the book ref is at the bottom (Coffey, Wayne (2005). The Boys of Winter (E ed.). New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-307-23731-1.) Ckruschke (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The claim of a cover-up is simply not credible for a number of reasons:

• The Soviets in the Brezhnev era did not attempt to cover up "defeats" that happened in the public international arena, because it would be basically impossible unless you had a completely closed society like China during the Cultural Revolution, or North Korea. They did cover up some strictly domestic incidents like the N1 launch explosion, but that's different: that was a top secret project in a closed-off site where foreigners were barred. The Soviets reported the space race defeat (American moon landing), so why would they attempt to cover up an Olympic hockey result with far less political significance?

• There are numerous Russian-language articles on the Internet about hockey at the 1980 Olympics, including the Russian Wikipedia articles, and none of them mention any cover-up that lasted until glasnost.

• The article itself states that the Soviets refused to change the game's start time to 8 pm (4 am Moscow time) because that would be inconvenient for Soviet viewers. In fact, the source cited for that is Coffey's own book. In other words, a substantial number of Soviet citizens watched (or at least listened to) the game, live. So how do you keep a secret when your citizens already know?

• In fact, there is audio of live Russian-language sportscast commentary of the game, for instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NbKZPPVRVo shows the last two periods (duplicated at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLgBhO1TLQ ). The existence of this audio should settle the issue.

• Straightforward Googling shows that the shootout was not introduced until the 1992 Albertville Olympics. See for instance the IIHF website The Shootout: From Boy to Man. So the "shootout" part at least is nonsense.

• PS, many universities subscribe to the Eastview digital archive of Pravda. That could settle the issue immediately, unfortunately I don't have access. Note however, that in those days Pravda was a thin (8 pages or so) newspaper with mostly political coverage. It didn't have a sports section like modern newspapers, although the Olympics were probably significant enough to warrant some coverage.

For all the above reasons, I will edit out the text that claims the 1980 Olympic hockey result was covered up in the Soviet Union until glasnost. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How later generations remember or not the event.

I never heard about this until it appeared on American Dad. At the time, I believed that it was totally fictitious because I remember that the USA boycotted the 1980 Olympics. I did not know that this was real until I saw it mentioned on the main page. If I would not have seen the episode of American Dad, I would not have recognized that link among all of the others.

Frankly, unlike events like Moon-Landings, assassinations, terrorist-attacks, et al which the media replay, maybe only those who lived when this happened even know that this ever happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Tiebreaker criteria

While the USA tie with Sweden was a moral victory that propelled them forward, it is not correct to say that the tie was necessary for the gold medal, with all other results remaining the same. As ABC announcer Al Michaels indicated during the USA-FIN game, and the New York Times article of February 24, 1980, confirms, the first tiebreaker was head to head. Had Team USA lost to Sweden with all other results remaining the same, USA and URS would have had four points, SWE three, and FIN one. And thus Team USA would have won a simple two-way tiebreaker vs. the Soviets regardless of goal difference in any other games.

Further, even if a goal difference tiebreaker had been used, it would have been calculated on the medal round games only, including the carry-over games (USA-SWE and URS-FIN); it certainly would not have included all the preliminary round results. Head-to-head points has been the first tiebreaker criteria at the Olympics from 1968 until present day. Joel225sp (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I am therefore removing the statement "had Team USA not scored this goal and all other results remained the same, the Soviet Union would have emerged with the gold medal on goal differential over the U.S. in the medal round."

The full criteria used at the Olympics from 1980 to 1994 were as follows:

1. Points head-to-head.

2. Goal difference head-to-head (GF - GA). The head-to-head games used in criteria two and three were the same as in criterion one, even if a tie was partially broken.

3. Goal ratio head-to-head (GF ÷ GA). [Goal ratio head-to-head was the method by which West Germany won the bronze in 1976.]

4. Goal difference in the round.

5. Goal ratio in the round.

6. Overtime (limited application). Overtime could only be used if two teams were playing their final group game against each other, the game were tied at the end of 60 minutes, and coming into the game, the teams were equal on points, goal difference and goal ratio, and the resolution of such game could not affect the standing of any other team. The overtime would be one sudden-death period of ten minutes. [Coming into the last day of the 1980 Olympics, overtime was not possible in either game because USA & FIN were not equal on points, while URS & SWE were not equal on goal difference.]

7. Shootout. The shootout would be five rounds with five different shooters designated beforehand by each team. If tied at the end of the fifth round, an additional round would be added until a winner was determined. At the end of every set of five rounds, the teams would switch the order of shots; further, the teams designated five different shooters to take the next five shots, but these could be any of the players who shot in any previous set of five shots. A shootout that was not a part of a game could be waived by mutual agreement among the two teams and the organizers. The placements could then either be shared or determined by lot. [According to the 2019 IIHF Guide and Record Book, page 6, 1980 was the first year that a shootout was possible in the Olympics, although one did not actually occur until the 11th place game of 1988.]Joel225sp (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

prior "Minor-league" experience vs "professional" in lead

I had changed the line in the second paragraph of the lead "With only four players with minimal minor-league experience" to read "minor-league experience", noting in my edit summary that Buzz Schneider had played four games in the WHA. The World Hockey Association was, of course, not a minor league but a major league. An IP editor has changed it back to "minor-league", asserting that "4 games in the WHA doesn't mean anything". The sentence as currently written implies that the highest level of experience on this team was four players who had played in the minors, and maybe it's splitting hairs, but that precludes Schneider, and his (admittedly limited) major league experience. Using "professional" includes both minor and major without judgement as to the quality of that experience. Rather than simply revert it back I am bringing it here for discussion per WP:BRD. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your version was most accurate. The WHA was certainly a major league, that's well-sourced and not in dispute. The way you phrased it was the most succinct way to do it, and it was factually correct. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TeamUSA1980 stamp.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)