Icehockey World Cup. w00ts all around!!

[BarMonger]

5-2 Denmark - USA

:ggowned:


:word: :knob:'s

[KinkyKing]

Just a small note to make you all realize:
Denmark ROCKS!
Let's go get drunk, BarMonger !!!

[MaC_DaDDy]

all our guys are busy in the playoffs

[$hortyDaPimp]

Originally posted by MaC_DaDDy
all our guys are busy in the playoffs
Truth.

[BarMonger]

Originally posted by MaC_DaDDy
all our guys are busy in the playoffs

:boohoo:

[$hortyDaPimp]

You know you're only bragging because you have all your players... if it were the other way around you'd use the excuse, since it's perfectly valid.

[BarMonger]

Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
You know you're only bragging because you have all your players... if it were the other way around you'd use the excuse, since it's perfectly valid.

Nope.
The reason your excuse isnt valid, is because of what danish icehockey is. This is our first game with the hockey elite in half a decade. We have been playing in the B-series nationwise for 54 years. We will most likely never have any players good enough to start in the NHL.
Thats why your whining is just that.

read this :) :
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/news/2003/04/26/us_denmark_ap/

[$hortyDaPimp]

Yes, I'm sure whining... but of course you're not bragging. I'm not even American, but when something is this obvious, you should be on the right side of the issue. Yes, the US should've won, but it's not like the best players, or even the good players, that the US had to offer were there to play.

LOL - http://live97.ihwc.net/english/teams/roster.ihwc?team=USA Never, ever try to pass that off as the American hockey team lmao. When you see that Phil Housley is their top player, you should retract all statements. So the Denmark goalie played well, everybody has their good and bad days. The reason that it's not that important is that it's an obvious fact proven by that roster that the good players either didn't attend or are in the playoffs.

Sorry.

[Punk Rock Avenger]

Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
Yes, I'm sure whining... but of course you're not bragging. I'm not even American, but when something is this obvious, you should be on the right side of the issue. Yes, the US should've won, but it's not like the best players, or even the good players, that the US had to offer were there to play.

LOL - http://live97.ihwc.net/english/teams/roster.ihwc?team=USA Never, ever try to pass that off as the American hockey team lmao. When you see that Phil Housley is their top player, you should retract all statements. So the Denmark goalie played well, everybody has their good and bad days. The reason that it's not that important is that it's an obvious fact proven by that roster that the good players either didn't attend or are in the playoffs.

Sorry.

You = jerk

Dear lord, man. They finally beat a team from a country who's done well there. It took them, what was it, 53 years or something? GIVE IT A REST. I remember you talking about arguing for the sake of arguing. Look at what you're doing now. Let the man have his few minutes of pride and just lay off.

[$hortyDaPimp]

You = jerk. You call names because of a hockey game? Give it up, it's not real life. Bragging in a rightful situation is less annoying, but bragging in any situation is annoying, especially when it's just because someone is happy that they're better than someone else. I didn't post "OWNED" things about Canada winning at the olympics, I don't like to rub things in people's faces. Look at the roster and you'll see the reason for the loss, end of story.

http://live97.ihwc.net/english/teams/roster.ihwc?team=USA
Roster trumps all.

And honestly, this topic was not just to feel good about a win, it was obviously to point out that the US was beaten. What would be wrong with: "DENMARK WINS ONE!!"? Right... the topic was just to try to make a slap in the face, and it would've worked if the US team was an actual US team.

[Punk Rock Avenger]

I really, really wish you would just shut up

[Sir_Gallahad]

Hm....wouldn't BarMonger's analysis be his own opinion...and not fact on the situation? ;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
Please don't try to argue an opinion again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Punk Rock Avenger]

EDIT: Not gonna do it...

[$hortyDaPimp]

Originally posted by Punk Rock Avenger
EDIT: Not gonna do it...
The smartest thing you've said today. After name calling, you finally notice you were wrong.

Btw: http://live97.ihwc.net/english/teams/roster.ihwc?team=USA

[Punk Rock Avenger]

Originally posted by Sir_Gallahad
Hm....wouldn't BarMonger's analysis be his own opinion...and not fact on the situation? ;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
Please don't try to argue an opinion again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know enough about hockey to CARE about the roster. If the US cared enough about the World Cup, we would have sent better players....

And BTW, quoting Gally was what I wasn't going to do. But you goaded me into it. Congrats.

[$hortyDaPimp]

I don't know enough about hockey to CARE about the roster. If the US cared enough about the World Cup, we would have sent better players - You should know (before commenting) that players choose whether to go or not, it's optional. Most US players didn't want to play and that's why the skill level of the team was so low, and there is your reason for the loss.

And I really don't care if you quote the guy, all of his posts make me laugh. I said that you can't argue an opinion with an opinion and expect to get anywhere. "Apples taste better!" "Oranges taste better!" He does this in all of his arguements; he likes to try to seem smart about it, but it ends up in the same spot and the post becomes worthless. I explained it to him, but he didn't comprehend it. It's not like quoting him hurts me, he's a joke and a person on the internet, I truly, honestly do not care.

[Punk Rock Avenger]

And you argue everyone ELSE'S opinions with your own...I mean, you refuse to accept the fact that maybe Denmark was more talented. I'm done arguing with you. I'm never going to change your mind, and you're never going to admit the slightest possibility that you're wrong.

[$hortyDaPimp]

Denmark WAS MORE TALENTED!!! Can't you read!?! The US team had nobody good and Denmark had skill. But this wasn't the US' best team and rubbing it someone's face is ignorant of this fact, because you still aren't any better than anyone else. You tried to come into the thread and make a difference, defend someone and be a hero. It was a dumb ambition because I was just pointing out the facts, and my opinion was not really any of your business. Nobody had any problem, BarMonger didn't need you to defend him and you didn't need to stick your nose in it. You did and made me laugh. Bad move, but thank you. There is no opinion on the situation, it's a simple statement of "Good players were not there, and it's the equal of beating a United States farm team." My opinion was that rubbing it in someone's face to feel better is stupid, and saying THAT prompted YOU to argue with your opinion.

So the Denmark goalie played well, everybody has their good and bad days. The reason that it's not that important is that it's an obvious fact proven by that roster that the good players either didn't attend or are in the playoffs.

Edit: Just watched the Canada/Belarus game. THAT's a stacked team. If Belarus won, THAT would be an upset.

[Sir_Gallahad]

Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
Denmark WAS MORE TALENTED!!! Can't you read!?! The US team had nobody good and Denmark had skill. But this wasn't the US' best team and rubbing it someone's face is ignorant of this fact, because you still aren't any better than anyone else. You tried to come into the thread and make a difference, defend someone and be a hero. It was a dumb ambition because I was just pointing out the facts, and my opinion was not really any of your business. Nobody had any problem, BarMonger didn't need you to defend him and you didn't need to stick your nose in it. You did and made me laugh. Bad move, but thank you. There is no opinion on the situation, it's a simple statement of "Good players were not there, and it's the equal of beating a United States farm team." My opinion was that rubbing it in someone's face to feel better is stupid, and saying THAT prompted YOU to argue with your opinion.

So the Denmark goalie played well, everybody has their good and bad days. The reason that it's not that important is that it's an obvious fact proven by that roster that the good players either didn't attend or are in the playoffs.

So Denmark was more talented and won....and this is something to argue why?

BTW....you argued his opinion of "ownage" with your own opinion of "not ownage because".......

Reversal....Iraq says their defeat was due to lack of talented military cuz the good soldiers were where the hell ever good soldiers would go. Does that make the victory any less significant? The American way (in sports) is: We lost. OK, they deserve the win and we respect them for it, but we are totally gonna own them next time. Congratulations Denmark....it won't happen again ;) :P

[Punk Rock Avenger]

Originally posted by Sir_Gallahad


So Denmark was more talented and won....and this is something to argue why?

BTW....you argued his opinion of "ownage" with your own opinion of "not ownage because".......

Reversal....Iraq says their defeat was due to lack of talented military cuz the good soldiers were where the hell ever good soldiers would go. Does that make the victory any less significant? The American way (in sports) is: We lost. OK, they deserve the win and we respect them for it, but we are totally gonna own them next time. Congratulations Denmark....it won't happen again ;) :P

I just can't stay away from a good argument

The thing about this hockey game was that the USA's best players WEREN'T THERE. It doesn't matter what you think could have happened. You're arguing with your own opinion that the USA, with it's best players, could beat Denmark. The facts are that the best players were absent, and Denmark won. There's nothing else to say, because nothing else happened. BM can rub it in your face because they won. There is absolutely no reason why he should take into account that the best players were gone. If the Cubs sweep the Yankees, and the entire starting roster for the Yanks was out of the game, THE CUBS STILL WIN. The game doesn't get marked down as a "Well, this game shouldn't have been won, since the circumstances weren't perfect for both teams" game.

And by the way, I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply trying to make you realize that your own viewpoint is not the end-all be-all to every argument that exists.

[$hortyDaPimp]

So Denmark was more talented and won....and this is something to argue why? - Reversal: This is something to brag about and shove in people's face why?

Reversal....Iraq says their defeat was due to lack of talented military cuz the good soldiers were where the hell ever good soldiers would go. Does that make the victory any less significant? - The iraqi information minister would be a liar, because no matter what there wouldn't be advanced enough weaponry. That roster proves that the players were not there, period. There is proof that the United States players were not there, it's just a made up situation that the Universal Soldiers were not there. If Iraq actually had the Universal Soldiers, and were therefore a better military in reality, then yes, it would be less significant because it would mean only the basic infantry were defeated. End'o'story.

The facts are that the best players were absent, and Denmark won. - They won because the best players were absent, and therefore the win is less significant in a comparison. If Denmark beat the (actual) US team, it would be worth noting. If Denmark beats another US team which is primarily composed of rookies, it would be less noteworthy. Obvious.

There is absolutely no reason why he should take into account that the best players were gone. - Yes, he should take it into account. When you're considering a GAME OF HOCKEY, you take into account the reasons why you won. When Vancouver beat St. Louis, STL had a lot of injured/sick players that weren't playing. It's safe to say that Vancouver would have had a smaller chance to win if they were healthy. The players were not there, the win is less impressive. The fact that they are moving on is not in question, only how much it is worth and what will happen in future games given the fact that they won only under the favorable circumstances. Why is this any different? It's not!

I'm simply trying to make you realize that your own viewpoint is not the end-all be-all to every argument that exists. - Neither is yours, so where are you going with this? Coming into the conversation to tell me I'm wrong won't change anything, and my coming into the thread and posting a few facts won't change anything, so what did you expect to get out of it? If your point was to tell me that, you've done it, but it's only a repetition.

[Punk Rock Avenger]

If Denmark beat the (actual) US team, it would be worth noting.

Denmark DID beat the USA team!! The team the the USA sent to the world cup was beaten by Denmark!! It happened! The event occurred! Stop pretending it was something that was a fluke in time!!!

[Sir_Gallahad]

Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
So Denmark was more talented and won....and this is something to argue why? - Reversal: This is something to brag about and shove in people's face why?

Reversal....Iraq says their defeat was due to lack of talented military cuz the good soldiers were where the hell ever good soldiers would go. Does that make the victory any less significant? - The iraqi information minister would be a liar, because no matter what there wouldn't be advanced enough weaponry. That roster proves that the players were not there, period.

The facts are that the best players were absent, and Denmark won. - They won because the best players were absent, and therefore the win is less significant in a comparison. If Denmark beat the (actual) US team, it would be worth noting. If Denmark beats another US team which is primarily composed of rookies, it would be less noteworthy. Obvious.

There is absolutely no reason why he should take into account that the best players were gone. - Yes, he should take it into account. When you're considering a GAME OF HOCKEY, you take into account the reasons why you won. When Vancouver beat St. Louis, STL had a lot of injured/sick players that weren't playing. It's safe to say that Vancouver would have had a smaller chance to win if they were healthy. The players were not there, the win is less impressive. The fact that they are moving on is not in question, only how much it is worth and what will happen in future games given the fact that they won only under the favorable circumstances. Why is this any different? It's not!

I'm simply trying to make you realize that your own viewpoint is not the end-all be-all to every argument that exists. - Neither is yours, so where are you going with this? Coming into the conversation to tell me I'm wrong won't change anything, and my coming into the thread and posting a few facts won't change anything, so what did you expect to get out of it? If your point was to tell me that, you've done it, but it's only a repetition.

1. Had the US beaten Denmark it would have been no big deal cuz it was expected. Even though the US sent inadequate players, we still expected to win (this is another trait of US sports: always expect to win). We, however, were beaten. Denmark hasn't beaten the US in a long time. Thus BM was highly excited and stated thus. Not all too unexpected from a sports fan. By your logic, every team that has beaten the Chicago Bulls since Jordan left has had a meanigless victory and hasn't earned a right to gloat.

2. Just making an example. Had the Iraqis the technology and personel, they could have defeated us, but they didn't. Does that make the victory trivial?

3. Ah....so if Rommel and his elite soldiers had been at D-Day, it would have made the invasion noteworthy? Wait....it WAS noteworthy ;)

4. See 3

5. Did you not begin this conversation to tell BM he was wrong?

[KinkyKing]

HeY! Beating you gous in hockey was a big boost for us(danes). Just like you're pissing your pants in "happiness" by destroying Iraq! Stop arguing ... "if the best team was sent", "Stanley Cup is more important" ... Give us a rest: We are not That used to be winning"
We beat you - FINAL!

THIS THREAD IS (maybe) CLOSED! (probaply not) ...

[Sir_Gallahad]

Originally posted by KinkyKing
HeY! Beating you gous in hockey was a big boost for us(danes). Just like you're pissing your pants in "happiness" by destroying Iraq! Stop arguing ... "if the best team was sent", "Stanley Cup is more important" ... Give us a rest: We are not That used to be winning"
We beat you - FINAL!

THIS THREAD IS (maybe) CLOSED! (probaply not) ...

BINGO!!

[Hydra]

Denmark won, good on them.

If the US had all their players, maybe they would have won, but they didn't, simple.


Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
When Vancouver beat St. Louis, STL had a lot of injured/sick players that weren't playing. It's safe to say that Vancouver would have had a smaller chance to win if they were healthy. The players were not there, the win is less impressive.

How is it less impressive? Maybe STL could have taken more care with their players so a lot of them weren't injured.

[$hortyDaPimp]

Stop pretending it was something that was a fluke in time!!! - Rename the team then and stop pretending it's a representative of the actual league (which it is supposed to be). Jesus. Amateur American team, that better? It's just a fact, look at the roster and it's like sending the world junior team to the series, that's it. The team the the USA sent to the world cup was beaten by Denmark!! - You don't get it, it's optional. The US sent no one, a few people decided to go. That's it!

How is it less impressive? - Because Vancouver beat the secondary lineup of St. Louis. How is this so hard to understand? We did LESS to beat them than we would have had to if we actually played the team that got to the playoffs. It was good luck on the part of Vancouver that they advanced. It's not the team's fault that a lot of players had the flu, and the best player dislocated his shoulder, just as it's not Denmark's fault the American team is only juniors. But (non-ignorant) Vancouver fans don't go around taunting St. Louis fans because they know that they were a bit lucky. It's just that ONE team is better than the OTHER team, and beating the LESS skilled team is LESS impressive. It's just like an average team getting a bye in a round-robin tournament, they didn't earn it, it was luck. Could the US have FORCED players to play in that tournament? No, it's not their fault, just as it isn't STL's fault that they caught the flu. Besides: Aren't you the guy who hates America? That kind of weakens the post, heh.

KinkyKing: Congratulations, you beat the Amateur American team. I don't mind you winning, I'm not even american and I don't care about the team. Rubbing it in OTHER people's faces is no better than them doing it to you after they win. Either way it's bad.

1972 Canada Vs. Russia Series - If Canada had beaten a team of Russian juniors, would it be the biggest memory in a lot of Canadians' minds? Obviously not. It's because it was team on team, best of the best against best of the best. There was no luck involved, only hard fought hockey between two fantastic teams. Canada bragged because they were the better team of the BEST OF THE BEST tournament. How can anyone argue that Denmark was playing the BEST OF THE BEST in this BEST OF THE BEST tournament? Anyone who does is only lying to themselves.

[Hydra]

Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
How is it less impressive? - Because Vancouver beat the secondary lineup of St. Louis. How is this so hard to understand? We did LESS to beat them than we would have had to if we actually played the team that got to the playoffs. It was good luck on the part of Vancouver that they advanced. It's not the team's fault that a lot of players had the flu, and the best player dislocated his shoulder, just as it's not Denmark's fault the American team is only juniors. But (non-ignorant) Vancouver fans don't go around taunting St. Louis fans because they know that they were a bit lucky. It's just that ONE team is better than the OTHER team, and beating the LESS skilled team is LESS impressive. It's just like an average team getting a bye in a round-robin tournament, they didn't earn it, it was luck. Could the US have FORCED players to play in that tournament? No, it's not their fault, just as it isn't STL's fault that they caught the flu.

How is Barmonger taunting anyone with it? His team won and he's happy about it, why do you care so much?


Besides: Aren't you the guy who hates America? That kind of weakens the post, heh.

When did I ever say that? An American lives in my house and I get on very well with him.

[$hortyDaPimp]

Maybe you don't, it's just that any America is good related topics (used to, at least) get negative responses from you. They were pretty obviously against the US, and many of them led to arguements between you and other people in the topic. I just assumed from that that you meant to say them, but I guess you didn't. :)

why do you care so much? - I hate bragging, such as "5-2 Denmark - USA ggowned!" and I'll say it if someone posts it. Why do you care about this topic anyway? "The reason your excuse isnt valid" - I responded to that, pra got angry and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon of trying to get around the fact that Denmark beat the Amateur American team. I'm not saying it's bad that Denmark won, they just didn't beat a good American team, as people who are bragging (not only this board, I know a lot of anti-american people who just went nuts hearing that they lost, same with during the last olympics) would like to believe.

[Hydra]

Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
Maybe you don't, it's just that any America is good related topics (used to, at least) get negative responses from you. They were pretty obviously against the US, and many of them led to arguements between you and other people in the topic. I just assumed from that that you meant to say them, but I guess you didn't. :)

Oh I meant to say that stuff, but only so I could get into an argument about it. That use to be my hobby.



why do you care so much? - I hate bragging, such as "5-2 Denmark - USA ggowned!" and I'll say it if someone posts it. Why do you care about this topic anyway? "The reason your excuse isnt valid" - I responded to that, pra got angry and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon of trying to get around the fact that Denmark beat the Amateur American team. I'm not saying it's bad that Denmark won, they just didn't beat a good American team, as people who are bragging (not only this board, I know a lot of anti-american people who just went nuts hearing that they lost, same with during the last olympics) would like to believe.

The USA is a very good icehockey team, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that, but a US team being beaten by Denmark is still a US team losing.

[$hortyDaPimp]

True, but being the amateur team, it doesn't mean as much. Beating an American seems to be some big deal since everyone is against America winning. Kind of the like the LA Lakers I guess... except that if Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant were out of the entire series, people would obviously realize that the team who beat them didn't beat the team. That's ALL I meant.

[BarMonger]

Originally posted by $hortyDaPimp
True, but being the amateur team, it doesn't mean as much. Beating an American seems to be some big deal since everyone is against America winning..

That is not the point.
We defeated one of the best hockey nations in the world, in our first game with the hockey elite for more than half a decade.
I dont care who we defeat, but this victory is something that will be remebered. Even with an "amateur" team, the US should be able to take on nations like Denmark without any problems.

I stand by my :ggowned:

[Simian]

Take into account that if the Americans won it would just be "ah we won agian, no big deal denmark is just another shitty team, no one can compare to us!"

;)

Let them have their fun shorty..