As a hockey player I don't agree. In my personal opinion, having played on my share of bad ice, it's simply a leveler, negatively affecting skills on both sides and amplifying luck. My appraisal of the two teams on good ice is that the slightly better defensive play of the Bruins was well balanced against the slightly better offensive play of the Blackhawks making for a very even series. I would have preferred that the ice quality in Boston be better because it improves the speed and play of the game, and reduces somewhat the possibility of luck determining the outcome. I did not care which team won, but I wanted to see hockey played at the highest level.
It is funny how two people can see the same games and come to different conclusions. In fact, it was the superior hawk defense that won the series, not their superior offense. Look at the entire BH season, they won/lost 80% - 90% of their games by one goal! That is the sign of a tremendous defensive team. That, coupled with the fact that they were better conditioned (mostly because the hawks core players are mostly very young), made a huge difference as the playoffs wore on. A fast ice would have just sped the game up even more, accentuating the natural advantages the hawks had over the Bruins. What the Bruins had over the hawks was size. But that very same size is what wore them down each and every game as the series wore on. The Bruins were simply conked and were skating on fumes. Were the Hawks from a purely hockey skill a better team than the Bruins? Probably slightly. But conditioning and speed, with moderate size, is I think the right mix for a hockey team, and this hawks team has those qualities perhaps more than any other team. The hawks can get to SC again next year if they come back in September super conditioned, with even stronger bodies. Toews learned an important lesson last offseason and came back 20 pound stronger.
You could be right regarding the relative strengths of the two teams. Obviously you saw many more Blackhawk games than I. Having played hockey for many years (in the distant past now) I don't see the Boston and Chicago teams as being very different in skill levels, so from my point of view the bad ice simply made for lower quality play all around, impacted the play of both teams equally, and amplified the role of luck. This was unfortunate. Maybe we can agree that if the season is going to be ending in Late June that the folks in Boston need to consider adding more air conditioning capacity, or beefing up the ice making equipment. Ideally the rink interior would be no warmer then about 50-55 deg. In the 1950's the University of North Dakota played in an unheated rink building. It wasn't unusual for the interior temp, being warmed only by body heat, to be in the twenties or lower! About the only thing the building did was hold the wind and blizzards at bay. Good ice though. http://siouxsports.com/hockey/history/oldbarn.htm
No question hockey should be played on ice, not slush. These guys are exhausted. What do they do? Party! http://www.suntimes.com/index.html