IOC not happy with Canadian women's ice hockey gold celebration

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I don't know for sure that a high-level 16 year old male couldn't beat a female Olympic skier. How do you know that?

I could round up a womens basketball team that could throttle the best men Canada could field. Should there be no men's basketball in Canada either?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Look at women's luge/bob/snowboard times verses the men. Not just as good as you state. There is a reason there are mens/womens events. You might want to look into some basic biology if you need further clarification.

You obviously can't read either - here is the relevant part of my post, which you quoted yet ignored:

Women skiers, lugers, bobsleighers, figure skaters, snowboarders, whathaveyou seem to be just as good at their sport as their male counterparts, if a bit slower/weaker

[the_professsor]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Why is it wrong to think a sport is bad if children can beat them at it?

Other women's events aren't nearly the same. You can't say the same thing for women's skiing, for example. But you can for hockey. Why is that? And why is it bad to question it?

To compare the AAA team that beat them to children is idiocy.

Who cares about other olympic sports? We're the best at hockey, other nations are gonna step up eventually, until they do, we deserve the gold. It's OK to question it, but your arguments are suggesting that they haven't accomplished anything, who are you to say that

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by the_professsor

To compare the AAA team that beat them to children is idiocy.

Who cares about other olympic sports? We're the best at hockey, other nations are gonna step up eventually, until they do, we deserve the gold. It's OK to question it, but your arguments are suggesting that they haven't accomplished anything, who are you to say that

I'm a person with the freedom to say what I want. Sure, they've accomplished something, but there's also going overboard. It's a 2-team tournament from the beginning.

You tell me. Is a group of 15 and 16 year olds kids, or are they adults? Do you normally classify 15 year olds as adults?

Don't resort to name calling, please, it only makes one person look like an idiot, and it ain't me.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I think probably just because it's still a relatively new sport. Not a lot of girls play hockey (even moreso when these women were young players), so the quality of competition is lower, the pool of quality players is smaller, the quality of coaching is probably lower. There are a bunch of factors that stem from the sport being new/not wildly popular.

I'm no expert by any means, but that would be my assumption.

See, Flacker, people are capable of giving reasonable, well thought-out responses without resorting to hysteria.
Nice post, Peanut. Still, considering they've played with each for years, I would just expect more chemistry, more "plays" - you know what I am saying?

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You obviously can't read either - here is the relevant part of my post, which you quoted yet ignored:

Women skiers, lugers, bobsleighers, figure skaters, snowboarders, whathaveyou seem to be just as good at their sport as their male counterparts, if a bit slower/weaker

From my previous post:

"Hmmm, perhaps it is easier to defend said lower speed resulting in less time and space."

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

See, Flacker, people are capable of giving reasonable, well thought-out responses without resorting to hysteria.
Nice post, Peanut. Still, considering they've played with each for years, I would just expect more chemistry, more "plays" - you know what I am saying?

I'm done with you, learn to read!

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You obviously can't read either - here is the relevant part of my post, which you quoted yet ignored:

Women skiers, lugers, bobsleighers, figure skaters, snowboarders, whathaveyou seem to be just as good at their sport as their male counterparts, if a bit slower/weaker

So being slower & weaker, coupled with the (relative) lack of competition at the younger levels, means the game is just different maybe? Lots of women's sports are just different: golf, tennis, basketball, etc. Maybe it's just biology?

I dunno. For the record, I don't even watch the women's games.

Just find it interesting all the poster's in here who've gotten away from the original topic (the center-ice celebration) and have started tearing apart these athletes, their accomplishments, and their sport.

[the_professsor]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I'm a person with the freedom to say what I want. Sure, they've accomplished something, but there's also going overboard. It's a 2-team tournament from the beginning.

You tell me. Is a group of 15 and 16 year olds kids, or are they adults? Do you normally classify 15 year olds as adults?

Don't resort to name calling, please, it only makes one person look like an idiot, and it ain't me.

You just changed your argument from 'children' to 'kids' to make it sound better, when i think of children i think under the age of 13. Also, AAA is mostly 17 year olds, with some 16 year olds and the odd 15 year old. Get your facts straight.

Don't lecture me on name calling, that's humorous

[chalms04]

The Finns must have been partying with the Canadian women last night.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by chalms04

The Finns must have been partying with the Canadian women last night.

Beer, smokes, chicks - you know Kipper was there.
I should know better than to argue with women...

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

And he was named MVP and to the HOF for his skills at talking? Athletic ability doesn't necessarily mean that someone is intelligent. And defending Allen Eagleson is evidence that someone's pretty stupid.

I would hope you would infer that I was talking about his HOCKEY knowledge, seeing as that is what you were questioning in the first place.

Anyways, all I was trying to do was say that a lot of these ladies are really dedicated to hockey, and take it really seriously, and are more talented than given credit for, and I'm pretty proud of them for winning a gold medal in the Olympics.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by the_professsor

You just changed your argument from 'children' to 'kids' to make it sound better, when i think of children i think under the age of 13. Also, AAA is mostly 17 year olds, with some 16 year olds and the odd 15 year old. Get your facts straight.

Don't lecture me on name calling, that's humorous

What? Why is that humorous? You're name-calling, what else is it?

Kids and children are the same. There is no change in my argument. You honestly think using kids instead of children somehow changes that? Is there another developmental stage I'm not aware of from child to kid? I couldn't care a less what your incorrect definition of the word means.

kid1   [kid] verb,kid·ded, kid·ding, adjective
–noun

Informal. a child or young person.

A team of 15, 16, and 17 year old children (or kids) beat a team of Olympic athletes that play in a 2-team tournament.

That is what I said. It doesn't change. Calm down, get a drink of water, and come back when you think you can discuss this without resorting to name calling. Good?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Flacker

I could round up a womens basketball team that could throttle the best men Canada could field. Should there be no men's basketball in Canada either?

Ummmmm, What?

No.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

A team of 15, 16, and 17 year old children (or kids) beat a team of Olympic athletes that play in a 2-team tournament.

So, I'm kind of wondering what the point of the statement is though? The more I think abot it, 15, 16 and 17 year old men/guys/kids who play at a high-level of their sport could probably beat women in most sports. Tennis, golf, skiing, luge, bobsled, speed-skating, track & field, basketball etc. etc.

Just because men are better than women at sports (in most cases due to strength and speed, as Vlad pointed out earlier) doesn't mean that women shouldn't compete in sports. Or that women's sports shouldn't be part of the Olympics.

And it doesn't really mean their accomplishments are less worthwhile when they do achieve success in their respective sports.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Flacker

I could round up a womens basketball team that could throttle the best men Canada could field. Should there be no men's basketball in Canada either?

LOL - with Steve Nash on point no less.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Just because men are better than women at sports (in most cases due to strength and speed, as Vlad pointed out earlier) doesn't mean that women shouldn't compete in sports. Or that women's sports shouldn't be part of the Olympics.

And it doesn't really mean their accomplishments are less worthwhile when they do achieve success in their respective sports.

See, I am all for women competing in all the sports out there because it's just as entertaining and competitive as men's sports (in the case of tennis, much more so ). Just not in THIS sport - it's clearly nowhere near ready. Ditto for football (soccer) btw - almost as unwatchable.

[amorak]

I figured out why Flacker is being so irrational!

Flacker =

[Flamesguy_SJ]

Haha, to continue with the Twitter...Down Goes Brown's latest post:

From now on, Team Canada women vow to only drink their traditional post-Olympics beverage: a keg full of American tears.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Flacker

I could round up a womens basketball team that could throttle the best men Canada could field. Should there be no men's basketball in Canada either?

Thinks you can't

This, by the way, is Steve Nash, a Canadian who "is ranked as one of the top players in NBA history for three-point shooting, free-throw shooting, total assists and assists per game."