Women -- In the Upper Tiers of Hockey?

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

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)

I wasn't asking for anything unreasonable; just something that indicated that the best women hockey players in the world didn't receive proper training or development.

I realize that the situations are not equal, and that it is harder in some places for girls to get their start in hockey than boys. That's unfortunate, but doesn't change that even the best women hockey players in the world compete against boys to gear up for tourneys, and those that strike out into pro leagues like Haley only compete in second and third tier men's leagues. These women, with obvious talent, go through developmental leagues just like men, but have never been able to compete at the highest levels with them.

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

After which she went to under-17 women's league like men do.

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)

Uh, no, a hypothetical would be "what if." The OP lists the reasons typically used when this question arises and his own reasoning for why he thinks women could compete. You brought up this "if only they had proper training and development" what-if scenario, where you haven't even established that the best women hockey players today go without it.

[Guest Shoreline]

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.

I wouldn't say women's problem is toughness, just the way their body is build to endure things. It is observed that when a woman's body gets hit, since their body is built differently, it responds differently. There are also other physiological explanations, but nonetheless a truly honest answer without political correctness reveals that when it comes to strength and physical endurance that males and females are not on par at this level of play. It isn't to suggest that the best women hockey players couldn't beat the pants out of 99% of the guys, but that when the envelope is pushed, that women hit limits that men go a bit beyond, and it really isn't their fault or anyone else's. That being said, as mentioned in my only post in here (I may regret posting again), I'm all for at least trying. One cannot say something doesn't work if they don't at least try. Allow some sort of integration, to start, on the AHL level (the NHL's experimental lab so to speak), and if that test is passed, move to the NHL.

I gotta take off real quick but I just wanted to point out that I do agree with a lot of your post and your outrage isn't misplaced, as a good portion of the stigma is stemmed from social issues, not from logical or scientific ones.

[Coolio Mendez 7]

Whats stopping women from being in the NHL? As far as I know, they are allowed but it is unrealistic.

You cannot compare women playing against women and somehow square that performance and assume they'll be equal against men.

Their bodies are different; men have more muscle mass and fast-twitch muscle fibres than women (this isn't a sexist rant; it's biology).

There's nothing forbidding women to play in the NHL. But all clubs want to win and for that, they all try to put together the best possible team. As long as hockey been around for there has yet to be a female player with the right skills. With that being said...I just don't see a reasonable path for a woman to play forward or defense in the NHL.

You play the greatest game in the world, which makes you ten bells better by my book than someone that plays (that game with the round ball of which I do not speak).

Edited April 2, 2009 by Coolio Mendez

[zaxx 0]

I wasn't asking for anything unreasonable; just something that indicated that the best women hockey players in the world didn't receive proper training or development.

Yes I guess it is not unreasonable to ask me to become an investigative journalist and provide discrete sources and collected evidence to back my statements. All I have is empirical data that I have seen through my time involved with hockey. I am trying to avoid the need for painstaking research and instead debate with the information we do know. The only way I could prove this to you would be to contact Hockey Canada and ask them to provide totals for the ice time dedicated to women leagues vs boys leagues. Then also ask for the credentials of the coaches of those leagues. The boys leagues in my home town require that their coaches have certain levels of certification and training, there is no such rule for the girls leagues. The boys leagues in my hometown offer discounted (and free for the Jr A) gym memberships for the 'AA" teams. These perks conveniently begin the year after girls are not permitted on the boys team (though I did hear they are working to change that)

In fact I could not ask hockey canada since many of the girls teams in various communities do not have proper affiliation with an organization.

I realize that the situations are not equal, and that it is harder in some places for girls to get their start in hockey than boys. That's unfortunate, but doesn't change that even the best women hockey players in the world compete against boys to gear up for tourneys, and those that strike out into pro leagues like Haley only compete in second and third tier men's leagues. These women, with obvious talent, go through developmental leagues just like men, but have never been able to compete at the highest levels with them.

You have just agreed with my reasoning and then ignored that to disagree with my conclusion. They are not equal in training, therefore it proves that women could not compete in the NHL??? Please rephrase to be - They are not equal in training, therefore if they were equal in training there is no reason to ascertain that women could not compete in the NHL.

Compared to the mens path, the development leagues for women are new, not easily accessible, not as heavily supported, have lower time on the ice, etc. When they are equal there will be a small number of women capable of competing in the NHL, not enough to overtake the number of men but they will be there.

After which she went to under-17 women's league like men do.

Unfortunately the women's leagues do not offer the best source to develop into an NHL caliber player. A women would need to play on the same teams as the boys (in the CHL, ECHL, WHL, etc). The amount of ice time dedicated to women teams is lower then the boys teams, the amount of funding by local businesses is lower, etc etc etc.

Uh, no, a hypothetical would be "what if." The OP lists the reasons typically used when this question arises and his own reasoning for why he thinks women could compete. You brought up this "if only they had proper training and development" what-if scenario, where you haven't even established that the best women hockey players today go without it.

For reference I did not originate the training scenario but yes it is a hypothetical, so is the OP's original question. You cannot answer "Could a women compete in the NHL" without entering into hypothetical. It has never been done. Yes I am reaching further into a hypothetical domain by posing the premise that it would be possible if the best were allowed to develop with the best but it is all hypothetical.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Yes I guess it is not unreasonable to ask me to become an investigative journalist and provide discrete sources and collected evidence to back my statements. All I have is empirical data that I have seen through my time involved with hockey. I am trying to avoid the need for painstaking research and instead debate with the information we do know. The only way I could prove this to you would be to contact Hockey Canada and ask them to provide totals for the ice time dedicated to women leagues vs boys leagues. Then also ask for the credentials of the coaches of those leagues. The boys leagues in my home town require that their coaches have certain levels of certification and training, there is no such rule for the girls leagues. The boys leagues in my hometown offer discounted (and free for the Jr A) gym memberships for the 'AA" teams. These perks conveniently begin the year after girls are not permitted on the boys team (though I did hear they are working to change that)

Let me put this to you in a roundabout way. What reason do you have to believe that the training in developmental leagues for women is inferior to men? You seem to be certain of it, but haven't given any reason to believe in it, other than your experiences in what, small town Canada? Do you think that's representative of the types of service all women get? What about the best women hockey players? You mentioned Haley Wickenheiser to try and bolster your point, even though she went through a developmental league and became one of the best ever.

You have just agreed with my reasoning and then ignored that to disagree with my conclusion. They are not equal in training, therefore it proves that women could not compete in the NHL??? Please rephrase to be - They are not equal in training, therefore if they were equal in training there is no reason to ascertain that women could not compete in the NHL.

You haven't provided me with any reason to think that the best women hockey players in the world are given inferior training. I get that your average girl may have a harder time, but at the top of the ladder where's the difference?

Let's make it a given for a moment that women do get "equal training." It's still a leap in logic for you to go from that to "women competing in the NHL."

Unfortunately the women's leagues do not offer the best source to develop into an NHL caliber player. A women would need to play on the same teams as the boys (in the CHL, ECHL, WHL, etc). The amount of ice time dedicated to women teams is lower then the boys teams, the amount of funding by local businesses is lower, etc etc etc.

Is that what you think about the Olympic programs for the United States and Canada? Or just in general? If the former, what reason do I have to believe you? Why wouldn't Hockey USA and Hockey Canada give their Olympic hopefuls adequate training?

[Vladifan 680]

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.

As for your comments about the what-if game, I thought that's what this was all about. Also I never said nor do I agree that smaller players are better suited. On the surface that just doesn't make sense. I was saying that big guys also get hurt, some for good - so size doesn't always equate to who can take injuries better, nor should it. I still say most of Konstantinov's power came from his timing. That's one of the things that was so very phenomenal about him. And I totally agree with your last statement. No, they don't have a good track record, but the fact is, they don't have any track record. I'm just suggesting that it might be possible for them to compete on most levels and it'd be kind of naive at the least to say it'll never happen.

[Coolio Mendez 7]

BTW, why stop there? Should hermaphrodites be allowed to play in the NHL? Transsexuals? Conjoined twins? Midgets? Conjoined midgets? Conjoined midget hermaphrodites? What if they were receiving the same training as current NHLers? Seriously. Don't selectively discriminate, People!

[HomeNugget 2]

Arguing about the amount of training men and women receive is pointless. It's not a question of training. Women are physically inferior to men.

Modern body armor alone weighs 25 pounds. This weight is proportionately more difficult to carry by female soldiers who are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance. Even in current non-combat training, women suffer debilitating bone stress fractures and other injuries at rates double those of men.

I pulled that quote from here. I'm not sure how reputable this site or the information is, but the president of this organization is a former member of the Pentagon's Defense advisory Committee on Women in the Services, and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the assignment of Women in the armed Services.

Edited April 3, 2009 by HomeNugget

[shadow47 1]

If a woman can cut it, more power to her. Wickenheiser was on the radar of I think the Flyers for awhile. It's just very rare, and how do you work out issues like fighting? No man is gonna fight her. It doesn't seem right that one player in the whole league is off limits for fighting. She could do anything she wanted. Decapitate Brodeur. Claude-Lemieux-Draperize Datsyuk. No one could really touch her. As far as goalies go, Manon Rheaume was super hot, don't get me wrong, but that was just a publicity stunt for an expansion team in an exhibition game. Which is fine, it certainly was a stunt, 3 goals allowed for poor Manon in one period, "two good goals, one bad" as she put it, but I have yet to see a reason for women in the N.

[shadow47 1]

Arguing about the amount of training men and women receive is pointless. It's not a question of training. Women are physically inferior to men.

I pulled that quote from here. I'm not sure how reputable this site or the information is, but the president of this organization is a former member of the Pentagon's Defense advisory Committee on Women in the Services, and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the assignment of Women in the armed Services.

By this logic the USA should fight infantry wars with 100% African American males.

[HomeNugget 2]

By this logic the USA should fight infantry wars with 100% African American males.

Why? Because they're harder to see at night?

[Electrophile 3,554]

I'm female and I don't want to see women in the NHL. Physically, there's no way we as a gender could compete with the men without looking like Chyna. I'd love to see women in non-contact sports like baseball and basketball....but hockey and especially football? No thanks. The sport would have to change too much to make allowances for physical shortcomings, that the spirit of the game we all love wouldn't exist anymore.

I'm not offended when men say they don't want women in the NHL because I happen to agree with them. Some things should be gender-separated and it's not sexist to say so. Men and women shouldn't have communal public bathrooms, they shouldn't have communal changing rooms in clothing stores.....there are just differences between the sexes that cannot be overcome.

[zaxx 0]

BTW, why stop there? Should hermaphrodites be allowed to play in the NHL? Transsexuals? Conjoined twins? Midgets? Conjoined midgets? Conjoined midget hermaphrodites? What if they were receiving the same training as current NHLers? Seriously. Don't selectively discriminate, People!

I love this comment!!

You not only found a way to compare women to so many other groups in a derogatory and discriminatory fashion, but you did so in a way that it made you seem like the most ignorant fool in history. I seriously cannot stop laughing, and yes I know pointing out the absurdity of your post is only asking for you to get upset and replay but it is just that easy.

If ignorance truly is bliss, then you must be the happiest sob I have ever known.

[zaxx 0]

Let me put this to you in a roundabout way. What reason do you have to believe that the training in developmental leagues for women is inferior to men? You seem to be certain of it, but haven't given any reason to believe in it, other than your experiences in what, small town Canada? Do you think that's representative of the types of service all women get? What about the best women hockey players? You mentioned Haley Wickenheiser to try and bolster your point, even though she went through a developmental league and became one of the best ever.

You haven't provided me with any reason to think that the best women hockey players in the world are given inferior training. I get that your average girl may have a harder time, but at the top of the ladder where's the difference?

Let's make it a given for a moment that women do get "equal training." It's still a leap in logic for you to go from that to "women competing in the NHL."

Is that what you think about the Olympic programs for the United States and Canada? Or just in general? If the former, what reason do I have to believe you? Why wouldn't Hockey USA and Hockey Canada give their Olympic hopefuls adequate training?

Here is an easy and quick example of how women do not get the same training opportunities as men. I cannot believe you are asking me to prove something that is written about in newspapers, magazines, textbooks, government budgets, and more, over and over again but here it comes. Women leagues and sports get a smaller investment from the organizing committees (universities, schools, etc). How can this be true you ask?

Well take for example the Universities in Canada, the holy land of hockey. There was no championship (and formally recognized league) in Canadian Universities until 1998. The men have had a championship since 1962. Oh wait you want proof of this:

History of men's CIS championships: http://www.universitysport.ca/e/championsh...y/2009/past.cfm

History of women's CIS championships: http://www.universitysport.ca/e/championsh...y/2009/past.cfm

But wait you say, all this proves is that at the University level things were not right until 1998. After 1998 all things were equal for mens and womens leagues. Wow you are really bending the rules of logic and reason now.

Alright lets dig deeper (I did not want to do a dissertation on this subject but perhaps I should now change majors).

In 2000 there was a lawsuit filed against the University of Saskatchewan. The claims were that the U of S invested more time and resources into men's hockey then womens. I know this is all destroying your rosy outlook on life. Lets continue. In 2008 (what just last year, that impossible there are no inequalities in today's society!!) they finally reached a settlement. Women's hockey at the University is now investing more funds, hiring real coaches, and providing scholarships to allow the best athletes to attend while developing. They are not 100% equal but they are working with the womens hockey team to improve.

This is only at the University level, there is more data out there for every level of women sports. Things are improving (as I have already stated) but a change today is not felt for several years (until the girls who can benefit have a chance to develop).

So as I said previously, there have been and are no women today who could compete in the NHL. However as we correct the differences in training, ice time, funding, and developmental programs we will see more elite women hockey players. Surely to goodness there will be a small handful who can compete and have the desire to play in the NHL. This is no small stretch, I am not saying women will account for 90% of the league. I am simply stating that we will see a few women who we can all cheer for, and they will hit as hard or harder then any of the men.

[BlakChamber 8]

So as I said previously, there have been and are no women today who could compete in the NHL. However as we correct the differences in training, ice time, funding, and developmental programs we will see more elite women hockey players. Surely to goodness there will be a small handful who can compete and have the desire to play in the NHL. This is no small stretch, I am not saying women will account for 90% of the league. I am simply stating that we will see a few women who we can all cheer for, and they will hit as hard or harder then any of the men.

How is all the training in the world going to make up for the biological differences between men and women?

I could quit my job and spend the next training with the best hockey people I could, and at best I'd go from a below-average beer league player to an average beer league player. I know my physical limitations. I'm slow and my hand-eye coordination sucks. There's a reason I sit in an office instead of manual labor.

[Coolio Mendez 7]

I love this comment!!

You not only found a way to compare women to so many other groups in a derogatory and discriminatory fashion, but you did so in a way that it made you seem like the most ignorant fool in history. I seriously cannot stop laughing, and yes I know pointing out the absurdity of your post is only asking for you to get upset and replay but it is just that easy.

If ignorance truly is bliss, then you must be the happiest sob I have ever known.

Conjoined triplet midgets...make a great goalie, 3 blockers, 3 glovehands!

And no I'm sorry you do NOT know me.....if you did you would know it was a joke.

[Datsyerberger 279]

How is all the training in the world going to make up for the biological differences between men and women?

I could quit my job and spend the next training with the best hockey people I could, and at best I'd go from a below-average beer league player to an average beer league player. I know my physical limitations. I'm slow and my hand-eye coordination sucks. There's a reason I sit in an office instead of manual labor.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here agrees that the physically average woman doesn't have much of a chance in the NHL.

I'm pretty sure we can also agree that it's possible for women to have the same amount of mental talent as men.

So, if in rare instances, we get some of the exceptionally statured women (say, 6'1" and larger.. maybe 6'4" for purposes of example) that also have an impressive (but natural) amount of muscular development for a woman.. and they also have the same amount and quality of training and play time as men receive (which they don't right now, not anywhere near on either account) .. is it possible that we could eventually see, if nothing else, a very small handful of women in the NHL?

Or are you dead set that not even some 6'6" goliath of a woman with the natural talent of, say, Pavel Datsyuk, and the training to bring out that talent to its fullest, could never make it in the NHL?

Edited April 3, 2009 by Datsyerberger

[55fan 5,133]

Can a woman make it in the NHL?

It seems we have a difference of interpretation of the word "can" here.

Is a woman able to make it? Given the differences between the genders, not likely.

Is a woman allowed to make it? I say if she has the talent, there's no reason why not.

When it all comes down to it, the opportunity is all that should be given. Making the grade (without changing the game) is up to the individual- male or female.

[Rivalred 630]

I have met some chicks who are more hardcore than some of the latest metro-sexual generation of men. It is called equality people, accept it, and move on.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Rivalred

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

To start, let me say I appreciate the research you have done.

Well take for example the Universities in Canada, the holy land of hockey. There was no championship (and formally recognized league) in Canadian Universities until 1998. The men have had a championship since 1962. Oh wait you want proof of this:

History of men's CIS championships: http://www.universitysport.ca/e/championsh...y/2009/past.cfm

History of women's CIS championships: http://www.universitysport.ca/e/championsh...y/2009/past.cfm

But wait you say, all this proves is that at the University level things were not right until 1998. After 1998 all things were equal for mens and womens leagues. Wow you are really bending the rules of logic and reason now.

I love your response to my imaginary rebuttal.

In 2000 there was a lawsuit filed against the University of Saskatchewan. The claims were that the U of S invested more time and resources into men's hockey then womens. I know this is all destroying your rosy outlook on life. Lets continue. In 2008 (what just last year, that impossible there are no inequalities in today's society!!) they finally reached a settlement. Women's hockey at the University is now investing more funds, hiring real coaches, and providing scholarships to allow the best athletes to attend while developing. They are not 100% equal but they are working with the womens hockey team to improve.

Again, the animosity is lovely. All I've ever asked of you is to support your claims. This is good info, I appreciate it. However, I've already acknowledged that the situation between the sexes is unequal. That's unfortunate, but the main thrust of my argument was the kind of treatment the top players in the sport have gotten. To that end...

Right now let's say it's a given that this inadequate training rift is what's keeping women out of the NHL. What does this say about the women that compete in the Olympics? Are their programs receiving inadequate funding? Have these women, considered the best in the world, been stunted developmentally? If not, why haven't any of them shown the ability to compete at the NHL level?

So as I said previously, there have been and are no women today who could compete in the NHL. However as we correct the differences in training, ice time, funding, and developmental programs we will see more elite women hockey players. Surely to goodness there will be a small handful who can compete and have the desire to play in the NHL. This is no small stretch, I am not saying women will account for 90% of the league. I am simply stating that we will see a few women who we can all cheer for, and they will hit as hard or harder then any of the men.

I would be all for that, but to date even the best trained women players in the world have been unable to compete at the top level with their male counterparts. You seem certain that with a broader talent base a woman that's head and shoulders above any other we've ever seen will appear and be able to compete in the NHL, but that's not very logical at all.

[zaxx 0]

To start, let me say I appreciate the research you have done.

I love your response to my imaginary rebuttal.

Again, the animosity is lovely. All I've ever asked of you is to support your claims. This is good info, I appreciate it. However, I've already acknowledged that the situation between the sexes is unequal. That's unfortunate, but the main thrust of my argument was the kind of treatment the top players in the sport have gotten. To that end...

Right now let's say it's a given that this inadequate training rift is what's keeping women out of the NHL. What does this say about the women that compete in the Olympics? Are their programs receiving inadequate funding? Have these women, considered the best in the world, been stunted developmentally? If not, why haven't any of them shown the ability to compete at the NHL level?

I would be all for that, but to date even the best trained women players in the world have been unable to compete at the top level with their male counterparts. You seem certain that with a broader talent base a woman that's head and shoulders above any other we've ever seen will appear and be able to compete in the NHL, but that's not very logical at all.

It is good to hear that you saw the humor in my response. I was very worried that you would be insulted by it but I was just trying to have some fun.

The women who reach the olympics are not as good as they could have been (stunted as you say) because they did not get the best training growing up. This is my argument.

Further they do get less funding, from sponsors, Canadian olympic committee, etc. How do I know this. Well I am having a hard time finding the specific numbers however there is good evidence to support things.

The players on the mens team come from the NHL, or prior to that the AHL/international leagues. The men are working hockey players, paid to exercise and continue developing their game. The players in the womens olympic team come from regular jobs like you and me, with the exception of a few. They do not have the luxury of playing all the time, or training all the time. From what I have read Canadian Olympic committee only pays for a few practice sessions, one pre olympics tournament, and a couple of other scattered games. Not a lot compared to what the mens team gets.

I am sorry that I cannot find more finite numbers, but I expect that as the olympics draw close some news outlet will publish the information. I know they have in the past, if I could only find it.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Can a woman make it in the NHL?

It seems we have a difference of interpretation of the word "can" here.

Is a woman able to make it? Given the differences between the genders, not likely.

Is a woman allowed to make it? I say if she has the talent, there's no reason why not.

When it all comes down to it, the opportunity is all that should be given. Making the grade (without changing the game) is up to the individual- male or female.

EXCELLENT POST! :clap:

[Vladifan 680]

I'm pretty sure that everyone here agrees that the physically average woman doesn't have much of a chance in the NHL.

I'm pretty sure we can also agree that it's possible for women to have the same amount of mental talent as men.

So, if in rare instances, we get some of the exceptionally statured women (say, 6'1" and larger.. maybe 6'4" for purposes of example) that also have an impressive (but natural) amount of muscular development for a woman.. and they also have the same amount and quality of training and play time as men receive (which they don't right now, not anywhere near on either account) .. is it possible that we could eventually see, if nothing else, a very small handful of women in the NHL?

Or are you dead set that not even some 6'6" goliath of a woman with the natural talent of, say, Pavel Datsyuk, and the training to bring out that talent to its fullest, could never make it in the NHL?

Badum CHHHHH. (*rim shot echoes around the halls of LGW*)

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

The women who reach the olympics are not as good as they could have been (stunted as you say) because they did not get the best training growing up. This is my argument.

Further they do get less funding, from sponsors, Canadian olympic committee, etc. How do I know this. Well I am having a hard time finding the specific numbers however there is good evidence to support things.

More thoughts:

A.) Is the smaller amount of funding conducive to inferior training or just fewer participants in women's hockey versus men's?

B.) What exactly is the effect of this so-called inferior training? There are players in the NHL who didn't start skating until they were 10 years old or even older. Either you have talent or you don't; you can teach the rest later.

C.) Related to B, how is it not a leap to assume the best women players in the world presently (who for the sake of argument we can assume have received inferior training to men) from competing with boys and in second and third tier men's leagues to being in the NHL?

[Carman 387]

I'm defintely against the *training* arguement, women are free to be involved in every single training program a male is allowed into. Especially at the top level. I have a very hard time believeing those Olympic women are neglected when it comes to equipment/ice time.