Women -- In the Upper Tiers of Hockey?

[zaxx 0]

If you are going to make generalizations like that play them out . . . I agree that your average man could not handle the rough play of hockey either but which one could handle them better? The fact is that women's highest levels of hockey don't have full on lay out hits and use cages on their faces. I actually really enjoy watching women's hockey (especially the Olympics) even though I rarely get to see it but it is a very different game. It is not the smash and crash game that the NHL is, it is much more of a finesse game - a great game - BUT a very different game because (in my opinion) of the realization of the differences physically between men and women. If you want a comparison compare the best to the best. The best male boxers would destroy the best female boxers; the best male weight lifters dwarf the weights lifted by the best women weight lifters; the best male shot putters out throw the best female shot putters; and the best male hockey players in the world destroy the best female hockey players - that is why they have women's professional teams (with different rules) and you never see NHL guys trying to get into women's leagues but the converse is true for all sports.

Hockey is the most difficult and entertaining sport because you cannot develop one muscle group and expect to survive. In weight lifting the sport exploits one muscle group. Hockey requires everything and more. Your entire body must be in top physical form, your reflexes, senses and brain must be in top shape.

The players in the NHL are the upper 1% of athletes, not your normal people. A normal women would not survive in the NHL, no more then a normal man would. Hockey hits hurt and a small number of people can take them.

Players in the NHL come in all shapes and sizes, some are strong brutes, some are small and speedy. A women could fit into some of these categories. Not just any women, it would take a very special women, but there is no reason that it will not occur. Also you need to remember as a generalization, women can deal with one hell of a lot more pain then men.

Lastly who cares that men do not want to get into womens leagues. What does that prove except that men already get to play in the best leagues, receive the best training and get the biggest breaks. Give the same things to a women and one will succeed and excel.

There are psychological differences between men and women, but the differences are not weaknesses in either sex. The differences that do exist would not be enough to prevent both sexes from competing in a highly physical and overly rough game.

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

I just do not buy the argument that women could not handle the rough play of hockey. Yes your average women could not but neither could your average man.

There are some guys in the NHL smaller then the girls on the Womens national team, they do just fine. Injuries will come and players will be hurt but there will be one that succeeds.

It is unlikely. However, there is certainly a woman out there somewhere who is built for contact sports and who could handle - and dish out - the rough play. I watched the women's weight lifting in the Olympics - oh my - those gals probably couldn't ice skate for *&^% but I don't think your average NHL player would scare them.

[DanZ 0]

Interesting observations --

I played on some club water polo teams in college, and let me tell you, women are nasty. If you "wrong" them they are out for your blood, and in between quarters all the women would talk about who they were going to "get" from the other team, and especially the girl-on-girl violence could get out of hand.

My additional theory to yours, is that most women today are not brought up in contact sports like guys are. Guys learn penalties, rough play and even the occassional fight is part of the game, at an early age. They can be in the thick of it, but leave it behind once it is over. Women are not exposed to that element as much, and when they are thrust into it later in life, it is personal. Real personal.

Of course that might change if more girls grow up playing contact sports and learn to handle it within the context of the sport and game.

Or can they? I have found, in general, women in the work place hold onto disputes and altercations longer than men as well. They just do not seem to be able to "move on" as easily from trespasses as men seem to be able to.

Sure women can be nasty but men can be absolutely brutal. I'm sorry but there's no comparison. Watch some highlight videos. A women will NEVER be a NHL player for numerous reasons. Don't kid yourself.

[Carman 387]

It's a interesting discussion certainly, but the more I think about it the less likely it's going to happen. I just can't see a female ever break in the male MMA, or male boxing etc. Now i'm not going to say there can't be one or two females who redefine the limit of women in men's hockey, but to this day I haven't seen it. I'll gladly eat the crow for this one too if it ever happens:)

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Not just any women, it would take a very special women, but there is no reason that it will not occur.

By your own definition she would basically be a freak of nature... So biology is a good reason it wouldn't occur. It's possible, in the same way that anything's possible, but considering there's not been anything close to date I wouldn't hold my breath.

The differences that do exist would not be enough to prevent both sexes from competing in a highly physical and overly rough game.

The history of hockey has thus far provided a sufficient counterpoint.

[EuroTwin 240]

I was hesitant to read this thread because I knew at some point, it would probably hit all my Feminist Rage buttons, but here we are.

Women are no good at hockey.

I know I'll get beat over the head with that, and it IS a little sexist, but I watched the women's Olympic hockey a few years ago and it aws horrible. Slow, non-physical, disorganized. They play like a pee wee club.

A little sexist? That would be an understatement. You can't possibly know what all women are and are not good at. I would agree that compared to male hockey, female hockey doesn't quite stack up, but that maybe has something to do with the difference in resources available to the male and female clubs. Could you honestly tell me that the male clubs and leagues don't get the better equipment and funding and access to rinks and coaching? And while that is most definitely not everything that makes a hockey club, could you imagine what might possible happen if female clubs had the same caliber of coaching that the male clubs do?

Most professional women hockey teams would lose to most mens college teams in a 7 game series. That's just the way it is. Women would get absolutely destroyed in the NHL whether it is a goaltender, forward, or defensemen. And before someone responds with a rant about sexism, my wife said that.

Not that I disagree with you, but in general, just because a woman said something doesn't mean that it's not sexist.

A baby step would be to allow full fledged hitting in women's hockey in international play (or all play for that matter).

Agreed. It's pathetic they don't get a chance to play the real game. That it has to be 'dumbed down' for them.

Granted i know that the NHL has been trying to get us accustomed to this over the last few years with introducing us to Paul Karyia but i still think they are a while off.

Honestly though, to those of you who say a woman won't ever be in the NHL because of toughness... I'm torn. Obviously men and women are not built the same way. But just because we aren't doesn't mean that women aren't as tough, physically and mental as men are. And just because most women don't try to enhance their toughness doesn't mean they could. I mean, it's ridiculous to assume that a woman couldn't change or work on her toughness, that there is only one 'level of toughness' that she could possibly be at her whole life. Given a chance, a woman could be just as tough, just as built as many of the Datsyuk-sized players. Just because that's not a "normal" build for people to associate with a woman doesn't mean it can't happen.

And given a chance, and the same coaches and trainers and opportunities that male hockey players regularly get over female players, females could do so well. As amazing as some women play, I don't think any female hockey player has reached her full potential yet. And yeah, sometimes you can just run on talent alone, but do you think any of the extremely talented NHL players would be half or even a quarter as good as they are without access to the coaching and training they get?

I don't know if I think that men and women will ever play in a NHL-caliber league together. It just hits too many people's squick factors. Most men aren't comfortable hitting women in that kind of situation, people aren't comfortable watching it, women aren't even allowed to hit in their own league, ffs.

Oh my god, this post is getting out of hand.

[HomeNugget 2]

Given all the same advantages that men have, the best female hockey player in the world would still only be a borderline AHLer/fourth line NHL player. And even then she probably couldn't stick in the league because no woman would ever be able to develop the strength needed to be an effective fourth line player.

[zaxx 0]

By your own definition she would basically be a freak of nature... So biology is a good reason it wouldn't occur. It's possible, in the same way that anything's possible, but considering there's not been anything close to date I wouldn't hold my breath.

The history of hockey has thus far provided a sufficient counterpoint.

Wow I have no idea how you view my statement about a small percentage of the population as me saying that the women would have to be a freak of nature. If you are making that connection (by some perversion of logic) then every athlete in every league regardless of sex is a freak of nature.

I did not say biology is the reason it will not occur, I said it is not possible for an average women, just like an average man to play and survive in the NHL. However there are special people among us who possess the rare combination of talent and toughness that could survive and excel.

By referring to the history of hockey as proof that it is impossible for a women to survive you are showing how little you have thought about this. Women could not vote when hockey was first being played, could not be educated (university) and were restricted from playing certain sports. Now things are not perfect but at least they are better. The only thing the history of hockey shows us is that the game is rough and only a small percentage of the population could ever survive. Even some of the best cannot handle the rough play (Shortened careers due to injury: Lindross, Orr, etc).

If you took a naturally athletic women, with a strong desire and motivation. Then gave her all the same training and coaching as a male with equal abilities, she would be a dominant force in the NHL.

You should read debates about nature vs nurture and then realize you are advocating that people are completely defined by nature (how they are born) and a perversion of even that theory. No two people are born the same with the same abilities and body structure. Stereotypes are created through observations of both nature and nurture, which is influenced by societies standards. Some women are weak and timid by design, others are strong and powerful. The same is true of men. However nurture also plays a big role in the development of people and this is where the training and coaching come into play. If you took a women born with athletic ability, strength, reflexes, and provided her with an environment that enables the growth and development of her abilities she will be a great hockey player.

The day will come when a women is given the same training as a man and she will prove that she can handle the physical and emotional pain on the same level as any other hockey player.

[BlakChamber 8]

^^^

BRTD nailed with the basketball comparison. A team of college men would destroy the WNBA All Stars. The USA Women's hockey team warms up by playing junior league teams. The best female golfer in the world didn't do anything on the PGA. Men and women are built differently. It's biology. No amount of feel-good PC thinking is going to change that.

[uk_redwing 495]

^^^

BRTD nailed with the basketball comparison. A team of college men would destroy the WNBA All Stars. The USA Women's hockey team warms up by playing junior league teams. The best female golfer in the world didn't do anything on the PGA. Men and women are built differently. It's biology. No amount of feel-good PC thinking is going to change that.

Ive never been so happy to say: WIN!

[Vladifan 680]

^^^

BRTD nailed with the basketball comparison. A team of college men would destroy the WNBA All Stars. The USA Women's hockey team warms up by playing junior league teams. The best female golfer in the world didn't do anything on the PGA. Men and women are built differently. It's biology. No amount of feel-good PC thinking is going to change that.

I'm not so sure I agree. Even though you and others here seem to have it nailed down that there's no way women can ever compete with men in most sports... I'm wondering what would happen if for instance in women's hockey, they did learn to play a more combative style. I'm also wondering if "they" found women the size of say, Datsyuk, Hudler, Konstantinov, Zetterburg - who excelled at puck possession and/or timing on their hits I'd like to think anything's possible. Konstantinov absolutely excelled at that and he wasn't a big guy. and Datsyuk does just fine on most of his hits. Meanwhile, very large male players like Lindros are out of the game. Players like Chara, Lijia, Pronger (i.e., Yzerman's hit on him) were/are damaged, partly because of the timing of hits. If that's what women wanted to do, I say more power to them, so to speak. And if that's their choice I think they should have that option. If guys didn't want to hit them on the ice, that's their problem and it's something they'd have to deal with.

[Wings_Fan_In_Exile 3]

Women are no good at hockey.

I know I'll get beat over the head with that, and it IS a little sexist, but I watched the women's Olympic hockey a few years ago and it aws horrible. Slow, non-physical, disorganized. They play like a pee wee club.

Yeah... I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on the "women are no good at hockey" bit.... I dated a girl for a few years that was the captain of her Minnesota High School boys hockey team(school that produced Jason Blake and Matt Cullen) and she also was captain of the University of Colorado Mens hockey team..now not Division I, but she held her own, broke her nose, ankle, knee cap during her "career" AND was not a brute of a woman nor bitched about pain. Not saying she would've necessarily made it in Division I or the NHL, but women certainly can compete up to a certain level. And she did have some good locker room stories for sure.

[GROwl 5]

And she did have some good locker room stories for sure.

Those stories would be a funner post! Call her and have her sign up for LGW.

[BlakChamber 8]

I'm not so sure I agree. Even though you and others here seem to have it nailed down that there's no way women can ever compete with men in most sports... I'm wondering what would happen if for instance in women's hockey, they did learn to play a more combative style. I'm also wondering if "they" found women the size of say, Datsyuk, Hudler, Konstantinov, Zetterburg - who excelled at puck possession and/or timing on their hits I'd like to think anything's possible. Konstantinov absolutely excelled at that and he wasn't a big guy. and Datsyuk does just fine on most of his hits. Meanwhile, very large male players like Lindros are out of the game. Players like Chara, Lijia, Pronger (i.e., Yzerman's hit on him) were/are damaged, partly because of the timing of hits. If that's what women wanted to do, I say more power to them, so to speak. And if that's their choice I think they should have that option. If guys didn't want to hit them on the ice, that's their problem and it's something they'd have to deal with.

When you say Vlad wasn't a big guy, he was still 5'11" and 176 pounds (per wikipedia). Zetterberg and Datsyuk are each around 5'11" and 195. Hudler is the shortest at 5'9" but he still tips the scales around 180 lbs. I have been unable to find an answer for the average height and weight of a NHL player, but my uneducated guess would be around 6'00" and 200 lbs.

By comparison, the average male in the US is about 5'9" and 191. I feel good I'm below that in weight. For females it's about 5'4" and 161. Like I said, biology dictates the men are bigger, stronger, and faster. Looking at the USA hockey women's roster, the biggest player is 5'10" and 172 lbs. Without doing the math, it looks like the average size of the team is slightly larger than the average US female. I mean, we can play the what-if game if you want. Assuming you could find enough women that fit the description of an average NHL'er, and assuming you spent equal time training them to play hockey, could they compete in the NHL? I don't know, no body does. But when you look at men and women's sports competing head to head again (basketball, golf, hockey, etc)

I really don't buy your argument that because Pronger, Chara, Lijia and Lindros are big men and they got hurt, that somehow smaller players are better suited. First off, even the smaller players in the NHL are larger than women hockey players. Second, big men play a rough game. Lots of hits, lots of banging and going into the boards. If you play that style of game, you're more prone to injuries. Look at Forsberg. He's not considered a big man (6'00" 210 lbs) but he played like he was much bigger. As a result, he's had a lot of injuries. Now I'm not saying any of the Wings you mentioned are soft, they'll dish out hits and go in the corners, but they don't necessarily play an extremely rough style.

I'm not saying there's no way a woman could ever compete in a man's sport. But as of right now, they don't exactly have a good track record.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rh%C3%A9aume

Manon Rheaume

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

The day will come when a women is given the same training as a man and she will prove that she can handle the physical and emotional pain on the same level as any other hockey player.

Hey, cool, don't stop believin'. I've not seen anything you said backed up with any sort of proof, whereas all the evidence you need against is staring right at you.

[Frozen-Man 144]

When you say Vlad wasn't a big guy, he was still 5'11" and 176 pounds (per wikipedia). Zetterberg and Datsyuk are each around 5'11" and 195. Hudler is the shortest at 5'9" but he still tips the scales around 180 lbs. I have been unable to find an answer for the average height and weight of a NHL player, but my uneduated guess would be around 6'00" and 200 lbs.

I found it and posted a few pages back average NHL height is 6'1" and 204 lbs.

[zaxx 0]

Hey, cool, don't stop believin'. I've not seen anything you said backed up with any sort of proof, whereas all the evidence you need against is staring right at you.

You claim to have evidence but all you have is a perverted understanding of biology (freaks of nature) and a firm belief that women cannot compete with men. Women can handle more pain and given the right training and development there is zero (repeat ZERO) evidence to suggest that a women could not compete in the NHL. I would agree it would be difficult but find me an athlete in the NHL who would claim that things are easy.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

given the right training and development there is zero (repeat ZERO) evidence to suggest that a women could not compete in the NHL

Do the women that compete in international tourneys not get the right training and development?

Even if they didn't for some reason, you're just posing a hypothetical.

[BlakChamber 8]

You claim to have evidence but all you have is a perverted understanding of biology (freaks of nature) and a firm belief that women cannot compete with men. Women can handle more pain and given the right training and development there is zero (repeat ZERO) evidence to suggest that a women could not compete in the NHL.

As opposed to your zero (repeat ZERO) evidence to suggest a woman could compete in the NHL?

[zaxx 0]

Do the women that compete in international tourneys not get the right training and development?

Even if they didn't for some reason, you're just posing a hypothetical.

I cannot believe you have been debating this topic for this many pages on the forum and you did not read any of the postings that provide evidence to the differences between the training received by women and men. If you are debating and not reading any of the information myself or others have posted then you are just wasting every ones' time. You should debate to try and learn something, not to troll.

The entire purpose of this thread was to be hypothetical, did you miss the first post of the thread also?

[TheOwl 77]

Crosby is close enough to a women anyways.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I cannot believe you have been debating this topic for this many pages on the forum and you did not read any of the postings that provide evidence to the differences between the training received by women and men. If you are debating and not reading any of the information myself or others have posted then you are just wasting every ones' time. You should debate to try and learn something, not to troll.

I saw some anecdotal evidence, but we're not talking about your experience with women's hockey; I'm talking about the athletes that compete in international tourneys.

The entire purpose of this thread was to be hypothetical, did you miss the first post of the thread also?

The entire purpose of this thread was to pose the question "Can women compete in upper tiers of hockey?" So far there hasn't been any reason to suggest they can.

[zaxx 0]

I saw some anecdotal evidence, but we're not talking about your experience with women's hockey; I'm talking about the athletes that compete in international tourneys.

Alright you did not like the evidence put forth try this: (feel free to call it anecdotal but I am not going to write a dissertation with cited sources just to prove a point to you)

- Girls were not permitted in boys leagues until the last 15 years and even then it is sparse and many places still do not allow it

- Many rinks and leagues only recently added or renovated to provide girls a private change room (they join the team after dressing for traditional locker room banter and prep)

Most rinks still do not have this, it is uncomfortable for girls to have to change in front of their peers

- Many countries outside of Canada / USA do not allow their women to play ice hockey at all (this is changing especially in Europe)

- In places where women have been permitted to play the age that they have to stop competing with the boys is very young (some less then 10) , they have to play Rec hockey.

Even Haley Wickenheiser only played hockey on boys teams until she was 13

- Many leagues (after the age cut off) have it written into their rules that girls cannot be a member of a team

- There is a stigma that has prevented womens hockey teams from receiving elite coaching, & training. This is not at the international level but in the young ranks. How can a girl learn if she is taught by someone who has never laced them up?

- Women's hockey (which girls are forced to play after a certain age) does not allow significant body contact and instead focus on other skills. And teams are full of many age groups, you cannot develop your skills when you are training with players 5 years younger

- People who believe that girls cannot/should not play with the boys make their voices heard and young girls listen and quit. (It's not lady like to kick the crap out of someone)

- Hockey is an expensive game for parents to enroll their kids, yes this affects boys also but it reduces the odds of finding a female phenom

The entire purpose of this thread was to pose the question "Can women compete in upper tiers of hockey?" So far there hasn't been any reason to suggest they can.

Exactly, the entire thread is hypothetical!! For goodness sake why would you bark at someone for following the purpose of a thread and then use those same ideals to prove that you indeed read the first post. I am very happy that you can read a post on a forum, now please educate yourself on the English language and understand that "Can women compete in upper tiers of hockey?" is asking for hypothetical! (like I should talk with my grammar and spelling errors, lol)

[Frozen-Man 144]

You claim to have evidence but all you have is a perverted understanding of biology (freaks of nature) and a firm belief that women cannot compete with men. Women can handle more pain and given the right training and development there is zero (repeat ZERO) evidence to suggest that a women could not compete in the NHL. I would agree it would be difficult but find me an athlete in the NHL who would claim that things are easy.

That is preposterous, there has been plenty to suggest that women could not compete in the NHL. You spout off whatever "evidence" you want about changing rooms, women being kept down, whatever and act as if because you think a certain way about them that provides some type of "evidence." It is all conjecture as to whether women could compete in the NHL even if all of the grievances you listed were remedied, thus all your musings are are just that and are in no way "evidence." People have just as much a right to cite "evidence" such as throughout the entire life of the NHL and throughout all of the many countries of the world (I guess every country has conspired to keep women from excelling in hockey) not one single case has arisen of a woman who can or has played NHL caliber hockey - and in fact the only woman who ever even played in an NHL exhibition game was only played (sadly and despicably in my opinion) as a publicity stunt. If you want to believe that there will somehow believe that there will be some monumental paradigm shift - fine - but just because many people disagree doesn't mean that you have somehow offered proof and that there is zero evidence to support the contrary point of view.