View Single Post
Old
01-01-2011, 05:25 PM
  #151
Briere Up There*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Žďár nad Sázavo
Posts: 2,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritter471 View Post
Dump and Chase wants facts? Here are some factual things he apparently doesn't know!.

Did you guys know that women's hockey was a checking game until 1990, when the IIHF took it out because the US and Canada were too dominant physically (the more things change, eh?)? And did you know that they don't measure NHL bench press stats in max outs, but in repetitions at weight since raw strength isn't the main point of hockey (the combine makes them do reps at 150 pounds, and the 2009 max number was 18)? Did you know several current and former elite NHL players can't bench their own body weight?
I did know all of that. Yet no female on the planet can touch the hockey playing prowess of a girly man like Phil Kessel.

Quote:
Did you know that it's actually harder to knock a woman off the puck with a body check than it is a similar-sized man because a woman's center of gravity is lower, which makes her more stable? Did you know women generally have a higher pain tolerance than men for biological reasons (labor FTW!) and greater endurance?
Asinine. Are you arguing that Theo Fleury could make the NHL or women? As for pain tolerance, I'll take your word but I'd like to see proof of that claim. Endurance is more easily disproved. Men outperform women at marathons and distance running.

Quote:
To quote myself from another thread, discussing the average high-level or international female hockey player versus the average NHL hockey player is dumb for two reasons.

One, at the moment, they have to play different sports, so saying "women don't check" means nothing. Women certainly could check if the game, as drawn up by the IIHF, had that in the rules. Several of the bigger elite players have publicly stated they wished checking was allowed in women's hockey. The ones who want to keep it non-check are, generally, the smaller players who would face a natural disadvantage just like smaller NHL players are at a natural disadvantage. There is nothing that physiologically prevents a 5-11, 190 pound woman like Angela Ruggerio from being able to play with men in a checking league.
Her weaker bones say otherwise. She would be more prone to injury, far more prone than you would admit. There's really nothing here to debate other than the fact that women's bones are naturally less dense. Even a great player like Ruggerio, who is superior to most men skillwise, would see her opponents "hold back" even as she weaves through them in this theoretical high level contact league.

Quote:
I think that if/when/whatever a the right female skater comes along, some organization will take a chance on her, even just to give her a dry run at the AHL level. There's no reason not to, and there are no rules against it (as there are in the Olympics, where it's men's hockey and women's hockey, not hockey and women's hockey). Given the way the current system is set up, the most likely candidates are girls who grow up playing on boys' teams because they will have more experience with a checking game, which is a completely different beast than a non-check game.

But boys boys boys. Your male bodies aren't as impressive as you think.
I do not understand your need to downplay the significant physical differences between men and women. Acknowledging these differences will not send you back to the kitchen, you can still aspire to any profession you wish.

Briere Up There* is offline   Reply With Quote