51836Re: Basketball HOF vs Hockey HOF (was: Recognition for hockey's fem
- Jan 1, 2008Chantel my standards are simple.
For players.you should be proven to be among the BEST players of your era.
That is could you play in a league of the greats for your era and excel in
it. And this carries over nom matter what the size of the league.of a modern
player could not play in a modern 6 team NHL he has no place and add on if
he would not star in it he has no place. I can say two things about players
form the past.
1-If we teleported them to today meaning AT BIRTH, those players would have
been bigger, due to nutrition and simple evolution, they would have had
modern training and equipment. Simply put they had a certain talent index
and most of the difference you speak are less products of talent than the
science of training of their day.
2-A Hall can only elect players from the past not the future. Hence unless
we purge it every few years and lose a sense of history we really can't help
but to have players from previous eras.
Plus your apples and oranges have a standardized link.the NHL or hockey
where we have good reason to say was close if not equal, was the player good
enough to play and excel in it? That level is the constant as is talent.
Therefore we do have two standards to work with through the ages. The rules
DO change but how many HOF bound players will be effected? The instigator
penalty has had an impact on goons. How many of them are in the HOF? A truly
HOF type of player can adapt to rule changes as the true superstar is
expected to do. Rule changes do not have a big impact on true HOF material!
Now if we are talking about different TYPES of entry you are right! And
women stand a better chance in that context. But there are still standards
there. Yes the women have attracted a number of girls to the game. But is
that number even close to say the founders of Russian hockey? Top junior
execs? Or even youth founders such as the founders of the Toronto or Boston
Met Leagues or, for that matter the local Met League here. Add up all of the
boys how have played even in our Met League organizations over the past 40
odd years and it is a HIGHER number than female registration in the past
ten! And we are DWARFED by Toronto or Boston! So tell me why their merit
rates better than these people who have actually drawn more people into the
game and had a greater impact? And what of minor pro people like the ECHL
founders.hockey may have died in a quarter of the continent if not for them
giving the game a presence in a league that not only draws millions a year
but also has helped to inspire southern kids to play. And I am starting to
see some of them dot legitimate rosters.and you will some in the NHL. What
of Maryland people.they have kept amateur hockey down there going for
decades! And quite honestly there are a half dozen DC area kids who are
really legit now.Why do women rate a butt into line ahead of them even if
they are not going in as players?
You say that the women have attracted girls but I can say that Bill Hunter
helped boys as his WCHL helped to make BC a hockey hot bed.southern kids can
say "if not for Henry Brabham there would be no ECHL and I would never have
played." We can say the same of every NHL southern franchise.they have
brought players into the game.And we won't even get into the men who made
European hockey what it is now.none of them are in so why should the women
get in first?
The challenge is there.get numbers and wait in line then they may gain
merit. But right now they have not been stuck in line as ling as others and
they have not brought enough people into jump ahead.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>