Winnipeg girls win right to play on boys' hockey team
View Single Post
09-26-2006, 09:14 AM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Originally Posted by
Ti you do realize that when you ditch the girls teams for the boys team you are doing two things.
1 - You are being selfish. You've put your own needs ahead of the teams and the game itself. You'd rather leave then stay and help develop the woman's program.
2 - You are lessoning the quality of those girls teams.
If every talented girl played on the boys teams. The girls teams would be a joke and it may discourage other girls from playing that sport. It may even lead to bigger problems where the school or town decides a girls program is not longer needed since the more talented girls are playing for the boys team. Several posters here have hit on that. Would you have wanted to play boys baseball if there were three or four other girls of your skill level on each of the girls teams...I am guessing no.
I look at Michelle Wie. Instead of competing in the LPGA she's focused on the PGA tour. The things she could do for woman's golf by concentrating on the LPGA and winning titles there would be greater then the exposure she'd get playing on the PGA and finishing at the bottom of the bracket.
If woman want woman's sports to be taken seriously. They need to keep the most talented woman in that sport. The woman playing those sports have to realize that and keep in mind that leaving to play with the boys will only hurt the future of woman's sports.
So is Sydney Crosby selfish for leaving the Q for the NHL? Is Ovechkin selfish for leaving the RSL for the NHL? People move on from leagues because they are too good for it and need a higher level of competition, why are we focusing on these two as being selfish?
These girls (and Ti-Girl) want to play at the highest level of competition that they can. Competitiveness is the driving force in sports, and is normally something we applaud in athletes. Wanting to play against, compete with, and ideally defeat the best that they can. No one seems upset when the CHL makes an exception for Crosby or Tavares to play in that league before they meet the requirements (age). But we still don't allow the older players who can't make the CHL to play in a 15 or under age group. And for good reason. This is a one way street because only so many girls can handle playing with men. Just like only in certain special cases can a 15 year old play in CHL.
You look at Michelle Wie and you miss the point entirely. For one, she's only eligible to compete in so many LPGA tournaments a year due to her age. For another, if Wie gets good enough that she can compete with the men, it would be a huge step not for the LPGA, but for all of women's golf. It'd give girls all over, some just picking up the sport, that the ultimate goal doesn't have to be playing in a lesser league, but playing with the best golfers in the world. It may not be best for the LPGA, but it's not good for the AHL that the NHL takes all their best players. What can you do, such is always the situation of an inferior league. You can still keep the LPGA so that women have an arena to compete in, but critsizing anyone for being competitive in sports, and wanting to prove themself against the best competition they possibly can, just seems absurd to me.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Seph