2012 Women's Worlds

[osualum86]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

You might be interested to know that Spooner had 2 goals and an assist.

Saw that in the box score last night, but thank you for the reminder, Blackbeard! I saw that Tessa Bonhomme had a couple assists, too! Love my Buckeyes!

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Any update on Haley Irwin???

Won't be back this week, injury listed as a sprained ankle:
http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/189452/la_id/1.htm

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

And with the latest U.S. domination of Finland, here comes the predictable and nauseating non-story about how it's possibly bad news for the sport:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120411/olympic-notebook-womens-ice-hockey/index.html


I sent this letter:

Isn't it hypocritical and sexist to conclude that women's hockey is "dangerously extending its growing-pains period into an overtime it cannot sustain if it wants to remain on the Olymipc program" when men's hockey suffered from an even worse lack of parity in its first three decades on the Olympic program? Canada won all but one gold medal between 1920 and 1952, and the only loss was to a 1936 Great Britain team full of Canadian natives. Hockey is the only team sport in the Winter Olympics, so the IOC cannot drop women's hockey and maintain any semblance of gender equity. There is no sense in which the current U.S. dominance is "bad" for the sport. Only the IOC can do "bad" by not giving the women's game the chance to grow that the men's game received.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Any update on Haley Irwin???

She has a high ankle sprain and is out for the tournament.

...just saw that someone else answered your question before I did...didn't mean to repeat the information.

 

[Call It]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

And with the latest U.S. domination of Finland, here comes the predictable and nauseating non-story about how it's possibly bad news for the sport:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120411/olympic-notebook-womens-ice-hockey/index.html


I sent this letter:

Isn't it hypocritical and sexist to conclude that women's hockey is "dangerously extending its growing-pains period into an overtime it cannot sustain if it wants to remain on the Olymipc program" when men's hockey suffered from an even worse lack of parity in its first three decades on the Olympic program? Canada won all but one gold medal between 1920 and 1952, and the only loss was to a 1936 Great Britain team full of Canadian natives. Hockey is the only team sport in the Winter Olympics, so the IOC cannot drop women's hockey and maintain any semblance of gender equity. There is no sense in which the current U.S. dominance is "bad" for the sport. Only the IOC can do "bad" by not giving the women's game the chance to grow that the men's game received.

Lets be real about this issue. It has nothing to do with sexist. I asked the question earlier, could Finland beat a good U19 team? No.
If the scores continue, it is over! Are the players happy with this? I mean you scored a hat trick vs a team that is at the U19 level, wow! It lessons the value of the hat trick. I'm new to this girls hockey thing, has it always been like this?

How do we get the other countries to improve? There is to much money on the line to wait three decades for the other countries. Sad but true.

To improve competition, how about letting the girls/ women to check? Clearly these other countries don't have enough skilled players to compete. Also, it would help level playing field and increase the sports popularity.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Lets be real about this issue. It has nothing to do with sexist. I asked the question earlier, could Finland beat a good U19 team? No.

Finland has beaten the US at previous Worlds. The US just blew out Canada -- does that mean Canada couldn't beat a good U19 team? Obviously, there is separation between countries, but don't look at a single game and attempt to read too much into it.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Is there anything more antithetical to the Olympic movement then to tell athletes, "Do your best, but don't do too well, or else we'll punish your sport." That sounds more like something from the Hunger Games than the Olympic Games.

With Sweden almost sent to the 7-8 relegation round, there's clearly more parity between #3 and #8 then there ever has been. Other gaps remain stubbornly large though. But the IOC simply cannot punish the U.S. for its success.

Now if it were true that the U.S. and Canada were conspiring to prevent other teams from catching them and not devoting unprecedented resources to improve the situation, then maybe you have a problem. But we don't have that problem.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Lets be real about this issue. It has nothing to do with sexist. I asked the question earlier, could Finland beat a good U19 team?.

I don't think there is a U19 club team that can beat Finland. The US or Team Canada U18 team maybe, but even that is a stretch.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

I don't think there is a U19 club team that can beat Finland. The US or Team Canada U18 team maybe, but even that is a stretch.

The kicker when trying to predict the result against a U18 team for either Canada or the US is what is the delta for the range in possible results? The senior Team Canada just beat Team USA 1-0, and then lost to them 9-2, so the Canada versus USA delta is at least 8 goals. Team Finland just lost to Canada 3-2. Obviously, given they also lost 11-0 to the US, that suggests that Finland's results can be all over the map as well. So on Finland's best day, I'd expect that they would defeat either U18 team comfortably. But on the worst day for Finland, who knows.

 

[Hux]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Lets be real about this issue. It has nothing to do with sexist. I asked the question earlier, could Finland beat a good U19 team? No.
If the scores continue, it is over! Are the players happy with this? I mean you scored a hat trick vs a team that is at the U19 level, wow! It lessons the value of the hat trick. I'm new to this girls hockey thing, has it always been like this?

How do we get the other countries to improve? There is to much money on the line to wait three decades for the other countries. Sad but true.

To improve competition, how about letting the girls/ women to check? Clearly these other countries don't have enough skilled players to compete. Also, it would help level playing field and increase the sports popularity.

A U19 team against Finland with Raty in net will not win, and would be hard pressed to beat the other SR netminder. Last year NAHA played the Swedish National team and held their own for a while, but eventually lost by several goals. That team was as good a U19 team as you could hope to assemble, and proof positive that there is a reason they call it youth hockey and senior hockey.

Since you are new you probably don't know about the various efforts, including the IIHF's High Performance program, that have been going on for the past several years to grow and improve the sport in Europe and elsewhere. The Czech Republic is a good example of these efforts bearing fruit. They have moved their Senior team up two levels over the past two years, winning Gold at the DII and D1 levels (and will compete in the Top Division next year) and have placed a number of players in D1 and high level U19 teams here.

Checking will do nothing to "improve" the game.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Saw that in the box score last night, but thank you for the reminder, Blackbeard! I saw that Tessa Bonhomme had a couple assists, too! Love my Buckeyes!

In case you haven't already seen it there is a brief video interview with Spooner on the TSN website...as well as Johnston, Irwin, Poulin & Hefford. If the link doesn't automatically start the video(s) they are located on the right side of the page. Once you start one the rest just automatically play in sequence.

http://www.tsn.ca/womens_worlds/schedule/

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Is there anything more antithetical to the Olympic movement then to tell athletes, "Do your best, but don't do too well, or else we'll punish your sport." That sounds more like something from the Hunger Games than the Olympic Games.

Hmmm.... no offense intended and this has nothing to do with hockey but this post caught my eye because I recently watched this movie. I have a hard time following your analogy because the Hunger Games was about winning or dying, which in my opinion is far from "do your best, but don't do too well..." I think the reluctant (though fictional) participants of the Hunger Games would have loved to have their "sport" eliminated.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Hmmm.... no offense intended and this has nothing to do with hockey but this post caught my eye because I recently watched this movie. I have a hard time following your analogy because the Hunger Games was about winning or dying, which in my opinion is far from "do your best, but don't do too well..." I think the reluctant (though fictional) participants of the Hunger Games would have loved to have their "sport" eliminated.

Mild spoiler warning in the next paragraph....

The analogy here comes because the Hunger Games wasn't just about winning or dying. Winning wasn't enough to live happily ever after. The winner was actually punished in various ways after the Games based on how she ended up winning in the Arena, because the way she won embarrassed the Capitol. Her friends and family also suffered because of the way she won.

Similarly, in the case of Olympic softball and women's hockey, you have journalists and IOC chairman telling female athletes (I mention female because this never happens to men), that it's not okay for the sport if they win a certain way. If they're too successful, then their sport will be punished. Then not only is your Olympic career potentially over, which was true for most of the 2008 U.S. softball team, but all the younger girls you've mentored and coached at camps with Olympic dreams don't get to compete at the Olympics either.

So yes, I think it's appropriate to say that threatening athletes to cut their sport for lack of parity is a philosophy more fitting of the Hunger Games than the Olympics. The Olympic motto is "swifter, faster, stronger" not "swifter, faster, stronger, but not so swift/fast/string OR ELSE." More people should find this to be totally unacceptable from the IOC. More people should be condemning the media who choose not to call out the IOC. Instead the media writes about how tragic it is that athletes could be victims of their own success, and that's just the way the world works. It only works that way if the IOC chooses not to give these women's sports the same chance to grow that a sport like men's hockey once received.

 

[brookyone]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Mild spoiler warning in the next paragraph....

The analogy here comes because the Hunger Games wasn't just about winning or dying. Winning wasn't enough to live happily ever after. The winner was actually punished in various ways after the Games based on how she ended up winning in the Arena, because the way she won embarrassed the Capitol. Her friends and family also suffered because of the way she won.

Similarly, in the case of Olympic softball and women's hockey, you have journalists and IOC chairman telling female athletes (I mention female because this never happens to men), that it's not okay for the sport if they win a certain way. If they're too successful, then their sport will be punished. Then not only is your Olympic career potentially over, which was true for most of the 2008 U.S. softball team, but all the younger girls you've mentored and coached at camps with Olympic dreams don't get to compete at the Olympics either.

So yes, I think it's appropriate to say that threatening athletes to cut their sport for lack of parity is a philosophy more fitting of the Hunger Games than the Olympics. The Olympic motto is "swifter, faster, stronger" not "swifter, faster, stronger, but not so swift/fast/string OR ELSE." More people should find this to be totally unacceptable from the IOC. More people should be condemning the media who choose not to call out the IOC. Instead the media writes about how tragic it is that athletes could be victims of their own success, and that's just the way the world works. It only works that way if the IOC chooses not to give these women's sports the same chance to grow that a sport like men's hockey once received.

Enthusiastic thumbs up in agreement. Or...THIS!

 

[osualum86]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

In case you haven't already seen it there is a brief video interview with Spooner on the TSN website...as well as Johnston, Irwin, Poulin & Hefford. If the link doesn't automatically start the video(s) they are located on the right side of the page. Once you start one the rest just automatically play in sequence.

http://www.tsn.ca/womens_worlds/schedule/

Blackbeard, watched it, thank you for sharing that!

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Mild spoiler warning in the next paragraph....

The analogy here comes because the Hunger Games wasn't just about winning or dying. Winning wasn't enough to live happily ever after. The winner was actually punished in various ways after the Games based on how she ended up winning in the Arena, because the way she won embarrassed the Capitol. Her friends and family also suffered because of the way she won.

Similarly, in the case of Olympic softball and women's hockey, you have journalists and IOC chairman telling female athletes (I mention female because this never happens to men), that it's not okay for the sport if they win a certain way. If they're too successful, then their sport will be punished. Then not only is your Olympic career potentially over, which was true for most of the 2008 U.S. softball team, but all the younger girls you've mentored and coached at camps with Olympic dreams don't get to compete at the Olympics either.

So yes, I think it's appropriate to say that threatening athletes to cut their sport for lack of parity is a philosophy more fitting of the Hunger Games than the Olympics. The Olympic motto is "swifter, faster, stronger" not "swifter, faster, stronger, but not so swift/fast/string OR ELSE." More people should find this to be totally unacceptable from the IOC. More people should be condemning the media who choose not to call out the IOC. Instead the media writes about how tragic it is that athletes could be victims of their own success, and that's just the way the world works. It only works that way if the IOC chooses not to give these women's sports the same chance to grow that a sport like men's hockey once received.

Interesting follow-up. I guess I still think the analogy is stretched a bit but I liked reading your answer. Maybe its because I didn't read the book and this comes later but I didn't see the athlete, family or friends punished (the boyfriend was hurt but I thought everyone except the very top echelon of the elites was happy with the outcome (if living is being punished I'd take it over the alternative). And by the way, I believe that men's baseball is eliminated from the Olympics starting in 2016 due to lack of competition and lack of world interest?

I personally think they will keep Women's hockey because frankly there aren't many team sports in the winter Olympics as it is.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Maybe its because I didn't read the book

Yes, the book made it much clearer than the movie how much she was threatened at the end. And then the second book begins with how she must continue to sell to the public that she acted out of love instead of rebellion in the Arena.

And by the way, I believe that men's baseball is eliminated from the Olympics starting in 2016 due to lack of competition and lack of world interest?

Baseball was axed the same time as softball. Baseball's elimination was some combination of bad press from steroids, anti-Americanism, political economy (Europe has more votes and doesn't play baseball), and economics (baseball & softball had required separate facilities of zero interest to European hosts after the games). Softball was lumped in with baseball as women's baseball more or less.

Lack of parity really had little to do with softball's ouster, though it was the primary explanation given by journalists because it made for a better story -- this whole victim of your own success drama. Plus lack of parity is why a lot of journalists wanted softball to be cut. The idea that a sport should be cut due to lack of parity comes more from journalists than the IOC. These are the mainstream journalists assigned to cover these sports and aren't clever enough to find any other story. When there were discussions to reinstate softball, then the IOC began to adopt something closer to the lousy journalists' position. Then you get guys like the SI article I linked below who admit lack of parity wasn't really a factor for softball's ouster, but then they say "it didn't help," and then write a whole article about how lack of parity is a huge problem for women's hockey.

Journalists were saying women's hockey should be cut "like softball" years before the IOC did. That didn't really happen until after the 2010 Games when IOC chair Jacques Rogge addressed the subject and threatened the sport. So yes, most journalists are not calling out the IOC because they invented the position that the IOC adopted.

I personally think they will keep Women's hockey because frankly there aren't many team sports in the winter Olympics as it is.

I agree. I am hopeful that Rogge was making empty threats. As I said, women's hockey suffers from none of the reasons that actually led to softball being cut -- only the fake reason.

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Baseball was axed the same time as softball. Baseball's elimination was some combination of bad press from steroids, anti-Americanism, political economy (Europe has more votes and doesn't play baseball), and economics (baseball & softball had required separate facilities of zero interest to European hosts after the games). Softball was lumped in with baseball as women's baseball more or less.

Personally I find baseball a little boring but I think it was a mistake to eliminate the sport. It has some appeal outside of the US in Canada, Japan and many Latin American countries. At least Canada, Japan, Mexico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic were competitive. You did say that men never get the short end of the stick but there were other men's sports that have been eliminated over the years. Some of the more notable ones were LaCrosse, Criquet, Tug-of-War and Polo. Also the co-ed sport of croquet was also an Olympic sport at one time.

 

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Men's hockey is a HUGE success at the Olympics. By success I mean that the TV rights holders are very pleased about having those games on TV (people watch, they can sell advertising). In addition people buy tickets. Money flows in.

Men's hockey is emphatically NOT going to be eliminated. It's just business, men's hockey is GOOD business.

Follow the money, business dictates that every winter Olympics venue will have a facility which will be used to house the money making men's hockey competition. Note that this CANNOT be the same facility used for the figure skating. Figure skating, particularly the ladies, is the primary cash cow of the Olympics. There aren't enough hours of ice time to complete both the figure skating calendar and men's hockey in the same facility. Figure skating is not going to give up hours in their (larger) facility for hockey games.

Therefore, there will be a men's hockey non-figure skating facility. ALWAYS.

Other events will be needed to fill the ice and to sell tickets to the men's hockey facility during all of the hours when the men are not playing. Many of those hours will be filled by the pseudo-sport of short track speed skating. There are still going to be lots of hours of ice time available.

If they didn't have women's hockey the rink would stand empty. Bad business model. Why not open the arena, put on some game or another, maybe, for example, women's hockey. Some tickets will be sold, some TV time will be filled.

Women's hockey is not anything at all like softball. The comparison is only valid on a sporting level. The Olympics is only secondarily about sport, the Olympics is BIG TIME about BUSINESS.

Women's hockey is very, very securely inside the business model for the modern Olympics. As long as men's hockey is a successful business entity for the Olympics, women's hockey is in ZERO danger of being dropped as an Olympic sport.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Plus, hockey, like figure skating, can be packaged nicely for television. I love events like the downhill, but that can't be the easiest event to produce for TV, given they need to set cameras all over the hill for a one-day event that can be postponed if the weather doesn't cooperate. Cross country skiing, speed skating on the oval -- these events have to be edited quite a bit to provide any drama at all for those not regular followers. Maybe this is less important now that they've added all of the new X Games style events like snowboarding and freestyle skiing, but if curling can be a popular TV item (I think curling would qualify as a team sport, assuming it meets the definition of a sport), hockey should be in good shape with the TV folks.