No longer a Boys Club

[RadioGaGa 162]

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=273292

Haley Wickenheisser HAS to be the first in...I would think. Cammie Granato a close second?

[NuggyBuggy 0]

Haley Wickenheisser HAS to be the first in...I would think. Cammie Granato a close second?

Wickenheiser isn't in the IIHF Hall of Fame, whereas James and Granato and someone else were inducted in the IIHF's first go round. Granted and further, AFAIK Wickenheiser is still playing. So why would you think she'd have to be first into the HHOF ?

[Law Goalie 147]

They'll probably put relatively old women on the ballot - people who were there at the very beginnings of fully organised women's hockey, or even earlier. I'd take Angela James or Geraldine Heaney as roughly contemporary players at this point; Hazel McCallion might make an interesting choice for a number of reasons; but I wouldn't be shocked if the first few inductees were posthumous.

Frankly, this looks and smells like a bullshit PR move to me.

There was NOTHING preventing women from being inducted before; it's not like the Hall just removed a discriminatory policy or anything. The only change is that now women aren't being considered against men, which absolutely reeks of tokenism. Throw in a couple of women every year, get some to write some good copy, make it seem like you actually gave a toss all along.

I hope female hockey players are smart enough to see this for what it is. Apart from Wickenheiser (who is still active, and thus ineligible) there are women who deserved to be in there already -- and I do mean over the heads of some previous inductees.

It's not just about gender either; look at the absolutely pathetic number of Russians. They dominated World and Olympic hockey for half a century, and they have five players and one coach in the Hall. The only real European presence is a pile of jerseys hanging in some afterthought side-wing.

Bernie Federko was a great player, but can anyone seriously argue that he should be in there ahead of Boris Mikhailov?

[interpathway 9]

Wow, great points LG.

[Dupes 1]

Its about time they do it!

Manon Rheaume will definitely among the first one to be there, so will Granato! :)

[Jason Harris 31]

Frankly, this looks and smells like a bullshit PR move to me.

There was NOTHING preventing women from being inducted before; it's not like the Hall just removed a discriminatory policy or anything. The only change is that now women aren't being considered against men, which absolutely reeks of tokenism. Throw in a couple of women every year, get some to write some good copy, make it seem like you actually gave a toss all along.

I hope female hockey players are smart enough to see this for what it is. Apart from Wickenheiser (who is still active, and thus ineligible) there are women who deserved to be in there already -- and I do mean over the heads of some previous inductees.

It's not just about gender either; look at the absolutely pathetic number of Russians.

Geez, was Starbucks out of your favorite blend today???

Is this a PR move? Sure.

Is this a bullshit PR move? Of course not.

They're finally removing wording in their policy that required the Wickenheisers and Granatos to be compared to the Orrs and Gretzkys. What's wrong with that? Sure, they could have done this 50 years ago if they had wanted, but the HHOF has been an Old Boys Club. It wouldn't surprise me if this had been discussed twelve times over the past twenty-five years, with the common response being, "Cammie Granato?? Please."

They're finally getting it right, just as they started giving the Soviets their due over the past decade (although Tretiak was actually inducted in 89).

[Law Goalie 147]

My own espresso blend is relatively low caffeine (as are most) - but Starbucks has nothing on Timmie's for a jolt. :)

My point is simply that there shouldn't be a problem AT ALL with considering women alongside men. There have been some really, really soft choices in recent years, and some flat out questionable ones; there should already be plenty of women in the Hall. Yes, the renaissance of women's hockey is still relatively recent, and few of the players have been retired long enough, but there's a hell of a lot of history nobody's looked at.

It's purely a token: "Well, women aren't good enough to be considered alongside men, as we've discussed twelve times in twenty-five years, but we're getting a lot of crap for it, let's just induct them separately."

Nothing like handicapping a ballot to make up for shortcomings in judgement.

Getting it right would involve seriously comparing the impact certain women have had on the women's game by (gasp) actually doing some research, and comparing them against men in similar positions. I think there are a number of women who would have compared favourably for a long, long time. Sure, when your induction classes have to cover the 80s Oilers and Islanders, you've got a good chunk of two dynasties to install; doesn't mean there shouldn't have been women in the builders' category.

[Chadd 916]

doesn't mean there shouldn't have been women in the builders' category.

There are way too many people in the builders category already. It's absurd how skewed the numbers are.

[chippa13 1844]

Until you have more than a handful of women that can play against the top men in the world, there is no other choice than to evaluate them separately.

[Law Goalie 147]

I think that's at the heart of it, chippa.

Everybody knows that if we put Cammie Granato on the ice against even a soft NHL Hall of Fame ballot offering, she'd get torn apart.

The problem is that the same could be said for any player from a different game -- be it isolated by time or geography or gender.

I know everyone like to play the hypothetical game of plucking players from different eras and throwing them in now, but the fact is, only a handful of players in history could skate in an NHL game these days -- and most of those are relatively recent. Bobby Hull is probably the only one whose physical fitness would be unquestionably up to the challenge.

The committee has always been more than happy to consider NHLers from soft periods on the grounds that they excelled when and where they played; they refuse to do the same for Europeans and women. The long-standing critique on any European was, "Well, he's good over there, but he'd never survive over here." I think we're well-past that fallacy now.

All they need to do is understand that their historical argument against women is equally flawed.

[Neal 41]

I think Tim Horton and Gordie Howe might have a beef with your argument about the physical fitness, but that is irrelevant.

You make an excellent point in that players should be compared to their competition. Would the pre-90s Soviets have done well in the NHL? How are we suppose to know, we have no real base for comparison. But they dominated all competition they faced, so at least their elite players should be in the hall.

The argument for keeping the women our ridiculous. We should be celebrating their successes every chance we get. The addition of women's hockey has been a huge part of any growth in hockey in the last 2 decades.

[chippa13 1844]

I think that's at the heart of it, chippa.

Everybody knows that if we put Cammie Granato on the ice against even a soft NHL Hall of Fame ballot offering, she'd get torn apart.

The problem is that the same could be said for any player from a different game -- be it isolated by time or geography or gender.

I know everyone like to play the hypothetical game of plucking players from different eras and throwing them in now, but the fact is, only a handful of players in history could skate in an NHL game these days -- and most of those are relatively recent. Bobby Hull is probably the only one whose physical fitness would be unquestionably up to the challenge.

The committee has always been more than happy to consider NHLers from soft periods on the grounds that they excelled when and where they played; they refuse to do the same for Europeans and women. The long-standing critique on any European was, "Well, he's good over there, but he'd never survive over here." I think we're well-past that fallacy now.

All they need to do is understand that their historical argument against women is equally flawed.

I'd bet the folks that cling to this one love to play the Rosie Rudzicka card, god-like on the international stage but so-so in his time in the NHL.

[Chadd 916]

The argument for keeping the women our ridiculous. We should be celebrating their successes every chance we get. The addition of women's hockey has been a huge part of any growth in hockey in the last 2 decades.

In the US, growth of the women's game has masked a decrease in male participation.

[Law Goalie 147]

Those are two good examples, Neal - and I'm sure there are others - who would be up to the challenge as I originally phrased it, but Hull is probably the only guy who would still be physically superior to almost everyone in today's game. He was a freak of nature.

Chadd, that's truly remarkable; I knew the women's game was big in the US, but I had no idea it was that significant.

Something that has consistently hampered the women's game in Canada are the repeated attempts to professionalise by founding new leagues. I know it's partly a question of prestige and pride, but I'm convinced that if they stuck to the amateur/Olympic model and tried to run a few more big tournaments for profit, they'd do far better in the long run.

[Law Goalie 147]

Scott Morrison just posted a short article on the subject -- and quite in evidence against his own reasoning, hit upon the very thing:

Fact is, it is very difficult to compare the contributions on a level playing field. That's reality.

Which is another way of saying that, in reality, the HoF committee took the easy way out. Rather than attempt the "very difficult task" of comparing the contributions of men and women respectively - which would not, BTW, constitute "a level playing field" but rather a proper consideration of relevant context, just as in historical cases - they went for the soft option.

Why put in the effort when you could have twice the laureationn at one-tenth the work?

[Jason Harris 31]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Are you suggesting that you want the women to be compared to the men?

How would a woman ever be inducted if the criteria was how she measured compared to a man? About the only way I can think of is if a woman bought or inherited a team and they went on to win 20%+ of the possible Stanley Cups. Otherwise, a woman could never win the head to head comparison -- it's only fair if she is judged against her contemporaries.