Chloe Primarano becomes the first female to be selected in the WHL Bantam Draft
- Thread starter GermanSpitfire
- Start date
...nothing except the blatant misogyny that exists in the old boys club that is modern day hockey, the lack of exposure for women in sport, the lack of resources in terms of money/facilities/opportunity, the fear of being assaulted by their male teammates, etc.
You forgot to mention the most relevant thing actually preventing women from playing at the highest levels.
Which is? Please, enlighten me.
If you're going to say ability, which Chloe certainly has enough of, then what's your argument against her?
You don't think ability is holding back women from competing at the top levels?
It's yet to be seen if she has the ability to play in the WHL. I'm guessing she'll never see a game.
BondraTime
Registered User
It's going to much, much harder against her male counterparts moving forward.
The other leagues have Midget drafts because it coincides with most guys growth spurts and strength gain, and ability to actually enter the league full time
There's no denying she's an incredibly talented player, and had a draft worthy season statistically for sure, but it's also naive to think it's an even playing field when it comes to growth and development moving forward for her vs. her male counterparts in the 2-4 years before guys from this draft will be entering the WHL.
I actually also find the talk about injury and big checks really patronizing and condescending. Because it brings into question more of her constitution and compete level rather than actual skill.
No one needs to worry about her health. Because she's not going to play in the WHL. It's not going to happen so worrying for her health for her is really patronizing.
There is no evidence to the theory that women's hockey is increasing in skill level relative to men's. But even if we suspended all disbelief and believed, against all evidence, that perhaps one individual player could play on the Jr. A or even CHL level. The WHL is a junior league. Women, like men, continue increasing their skill level through their mid 20s. Look at Sarah Nurse, 1 point in 2018, 18 points to lead the team in 2022 at 27 years old, a huge jump in growth from 2018 to 2022. There were no juniors on this year's Olympic Women's Team, there were no juniors on the last Olympic team or the year before.
So even if we suspended all disbelief, and believed that the best woman could play in the WHL. The best woman wouldn't be a junior. By 2032, when she is entering her prime, Vancouver's draft rights over her will have expired. She will be a free agent and any team can sign her at that point if they so choose.
No one needs to worry about her health. Because she's not going to play in the WHL. It's not going to happen so worrying for her health for her is really patronizing.
There is no evidence to the theory that women's hockey is increasing in skill level relative to men's. But even if we suspended all disbelief and believed, against all evidence, that perhaps one individual player could play on the Jr. A or even CHL level. The WHL is a junior league. Women, like men, continue increasing their skill level through their mid 20s. Look at Sarah Nurse, 1 point in 2018, 18 points to lead the team in 2022 at 27 years old, a huge jump in growth from 2018 to 2022. There were no juniors on this year's Olympic Women's Team, there were no juniors on the last Olympic team or the year before.
So even if we suspended all disbelief, and believed that the best woman could play in the WHL. The best woman wouldn't be a junior. By 2032, when she is entering her prime, Vancouver's draft rights over her will have expired. She will be a free agent and any team can sign her at that point if they so choose.
You may very well be right about her never playing a game, but imagine what this does for the Burnaby Winter Club and the league they play in? More individual success and publicity means more interested players, which means more revenue, which means better facilities, which means higher standards for their club, which means higher standards for the opposing clubs, which means a better crop of female players coming in the future.
It is my personal belief that women not succeeding in men's sports has very little to do with the women themselves, but more the fact that they are not afforded the same opportunity as boys growing up. I understand there are biological disadvantages as well, I know I cannot refute that fact, but who's to say they can't overcome that boundary? Especially at the junior level, where physical development is still quite similar regardless of sex.
BondraTime
Registered User
Junior aged boys are far, far stronger than junior aged girls.
If they were able to overcome that boundary, somebody would have.
You mean... like Chloe Primerano did... by even being drafted? Obviously one team thinks she could have what it takes.
Being a 13th round pick isn't the glowing endorsement you think it is.
I like the first paragraph because I also dislike the use of the word "publicity stunt." At the EOTY team awards when one player gets the "most improved award" is that a publicity stunt? This is huge for the family, for her friends and family friends, for the local club, etc. That shouldn't be downgraded by being called a "publicity stunt." Even though she won't play in the league.
Second paragraph. I think you don't quite understand the size of the differences. But, to your point, differences in training opportunities. Here's the classic counterargument. Canadian women have fewer training opportunities than Canadian men, that is true. But Canada is a rich country and a big hockey country. Players still are drafted and go on to play in the NHL from parts of the world which are either poorer, or not big hockey countries. These men from non-traditional hockey countries receive even fewer training opportunities, particularly up to age 14, than Canadian women. And they are drafted less often, or at a lower rate, as a result, than Canadian men. But no female skater has ever played in the CHL. That is a tremendous difference. If the difference were primarily to do with training opportunities, Canada women's should have been able to produce a Jan Drozg, Alan Lyszczarczyk, or a Liam Kirk by now. All of whom tore up the CHL as early as their U19 seasons.
This is assuming they made an exception to the rule, which they likely would.
BondraTime
Registered User
Deep Blue Metallic
Bo knows hockey.
- Mar 5, 2021
- 5,180
- 6,493
Women will never be competitive with men in sports.
Compare records in sports whose results are purely objective - athletics and swimming, for example. Women have been competing in these sports, in large numbers around the world, for decades, with the best of facilities, coaching, diet, etc.
Here are some world records to consider.
The women holding these records are phenomenal athletes who would trounce, I dare say, the fittest and strongest of males posting in these forums. Their results, however, are consistently 10%+ short of their elite male counterparts. In head-to-head competition their male peers would leave them far behind. (If these events are not to your liking, please choose and post your own.)
There is no reason to believe that in team or judged sports - hockey, soccer, gymnastics, diving, etc. - the results would be any different.
Women are disadvantaged, not because they lack opportunity, but by biology and evolution. Let's check back in a few million years to see if anything has changed.
Compare records in sports whose results are purely objective - athletics and swimming, for example. Women have been competing in these sports, in large numbers around the world, for decades, with the best of facilities, coaching, diet, etc.
Here are some world records to consider.
| Event | Men's Record | Women's Record |
| 100m sprint | 9.58 | 10.49 |
| 1,500m run | 3:26.00 | 3:50.07 |
| 10,000m run | 26:11.00 | 29:01.03 |
| high jump | 2.45m | 2.09m |
| 100m freestyle swim | 46.91 | 51.71 |
| 1,500m swim | 14:31.02 | 15:20.48 |
| English Channel swim | 6h 55m | 7h 25m |
The women holding these records are phenomenal athletes who would trounce, I dare say, the fittest and strongest of males posting in these forums. Their results, however, are consistently 10%+ short of their elite male counterparts. In head-to-head competition their male peers would leave them far behind. (If these events are not to your liking, please choose and post your own.)
There is no reason to believe that in team or judged sports - hockey, soccer, gymnastics, diving, etc. - the results would be any different.
Women are disadvantaged, not because they lack opportunity, but by biology and evolution. Let's check back in a few million years to see if anything has changed.
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 14,137
- 9,525
10 or even 15% short of the top male counterparts, I'd still argue that statistically the WHL is a reasonable future possibility for women vs the NHL. It's considered at least like 5th level of difficulty down if not more? (KHL, SHL, AHL, Finnish league etc.) your biological stance is BS because of she is even 25% lower than the 10th best player in the league, in theory, she should be good enough to hang around in that league. It's not purely genetics that keeps womens hockey at a level near the male ones that are 10+ levels down from the NHL.
She's a 13th rounder in the WHL, not a 13th overall pick. She doesn't have to be a star. She just has to be good enough to get into a few games. But good God, some of you are acting like if she is not going to be a super star, she should quit now.
Dangerous? Would any of you bat an eye if she Free climbed and could fall and die? Enjoyed sky diving/paragliding? Raced cars? Did parkour on a sky scraper? Acrobatics without a net?
Just let her try without trying to detail her before she even begins.
Deep Blue Metallic
Bo knows hockey.
- Mar 5, 2021
- 5,180
- 6,493
The problem is that athletics are unidimensional. Run fast. Swim fast.
Hockey is not. Skating fast in a straight line/loop is important. But skating backwards is equally important. And so is 3 cone drill. So is shooting power, strength in battles, puck protection, endurance, and and.
As you go further away from a record, the number of people who can achieve it increases exponentially. For example, Bolt holds the 100m record. If you add a tenth of a second to the record, still only Bolt has achieved that. If you add .20 seconds to the record, now 8 have achieved that. If you add another tenth, like 30-40 people have achieved that. Adding 4 tenths, over 160 people have achieved the 10 second barrier. The number of people who have run under 10.49 is in the thousands. Being 10% worse than the record in one category, there may be dozens of people even in the WHL better than you in that category.
And people have strengths and weaknesses. If your best attribute is 10% worse than the best, your other attributes may be 25% worse than the best, or even worse. And again, because achievability grows exponentially, there will be even more people who are just slightly worse than you at that trait, but are better at other things. It's the summation of traits that makes a hockey player.
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 14,137
- 9,525
Which fair, but the context I was discussing is more statistical. I also meant that in general, women should statistically be able to break into some of these lower leagues purely based on a 10-25% difference in lower overall peak performances based on Olympic record data. Sure, maybe that gap is still huge, but Chloe is the first of hopefully many attempts.
Chloe was drafted 268th overall this year for the WHL. That's the draftees for just this year. As a late rounder, sure, the expectation isn't high she plays more than a few games in the WHL. But I'm just saying that purely based on the numbers game and enough attempts over a reasonable duration of let's say 5-10 years, I think sooner or later maybe women might have a few more regulars in the WHL.
In the NHL, we have something like 650-700 active players?
In the AHL, we have something like 450-500 active players?
In the SHL, we have something like 450-500 active players?
In the KHL, we have something like 450-500 active players?
In the WHL, we have something like 550-600 active players?
Is there seriously a group think considering there's no damn way that of around 2,500 - 3,500 active players in the top 8 male leagues in the world, that a woman in general cannot put together a summation of traits to be considered competitive in the bottom pairings/bottom 6 forwards of the 5-8th ranked leagues? Give them equal access to training/potential reward and I think in about 5-10 years we start seeing some. Genetically speaking, I statistically I really do not believe that if all other facets other than genetics are equal, males can produce 3,000+ hockey players with summation of traits that are superior to the absolute best 5 women hockey players in the world.
Yes, we have examples where the 200th ranked male of certain sports handily defeat the top 5 ranked women of the same sport. My argument is that while that's likely valid, I really cannot see this continue if you increase the sample towards the top 1000, 2000 or 3000th top player.
If using something else as a parallel (and I am not attempting to be callous in using this as a parallel):
Willie O'Ree was the first black player in the NHL in 1958 and he played 45 games over 4 years. After that, the next black player was 1974. It's a systematic reason that there was a 16 year gap between the first and the second.
Hopefully it doesn't take 16 years for a second potential woman player to reach the WHL due to systematic reasons. Because statistically I think it should be possible sooner or later.
The problem is that Tennis has fewer traits along which such divergences appear. Tennis has a couple components, shot speed, forward movement, lateral movement. And even then the differences are startling. Not only that, Tennis has a much smaller player base than team sports do.
Some sports are more conducive for equality in competition and some are less conducive. Unfortunately, hockey is one of the least conducive sports for it. It's a contact sport with high requirements for explosive movement and low specialization. Contact creates strength requirements. Explosiveness creates another axis for traits to diverge. And low specialization means that each player has to do every part of the game, no player can specialize in a certain role and thus reduce the axes along which he/she must be competitive.
Soccer and Basketball are similar sports to hockey. And the same phenomena are observable in those sports. The best female athletes are equivalent to unremarkable teenage boys. With the Premier League, Ligue 1, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, Eredivisie, with your logic you'd think some woman would at least be able to crack a lesser league in a progressive country like Allsvenskan or Tippeligaen. And with all the big pro basketball leagues there are in the world, by your logic there should be at least a couple female players in D1 college basketball. Neither is true to my knowledge.
There are two bad arguments. The first is the "exceptional individuals" argument. The second is the "access to training" argument. We'll address both. Canada's women's hockey team usually scrimmages Midget AAA teams. They are usually a mid-table team. The top scorer ever is Jennifer Wakefield, with 21 points in 30 games for a .7 PPG. Right behind her is Marie Philip Poulin with 14 points in 23 games, .6 PPG. Then there is Natalie Spooner with 18 points in 31 games, .58 PPG. The argument traditionally goes "well, the WNT as a whole is bad. But one generational talent could be so good that she could perform in the WHL, if only you took her away from her bad WNT teammates and placed her with good WHL teammates."
But the premise is false. The WNT is an average or slightly above average Midget AAA team. So if there was a woman capable of making the WHL out of Midget AAA, her teammates shouldn't be any hindrance to her scoring what WHL players score even before they make the WHL, much less what they would score by the time they actually make the WHL (usually the WHL season is a subsequent season to the Midget season so we can't factor growth and improvement). It's no fault of the teammates. It simply does not happen.
The problem with the argument about training conditions is as follows. Canada is a wealthy country, and a big hockey country. Most other countries are not hockey countries, not wealthy, or both. Canadian women's training opportunities are poor compared to Canadian men, but they are incomparably better than the training opportunities that male players from non-hockey countries receive. And yet, players come to play in the NHL and the CHL from a vast array of countries with few hockey training opportunities and little hockey infrastructure. Examples include Liam Kirk (GB), Jan Drozg (Slovenia), Alan Lysczarczyk (Poland), Igor Merezhko (Ukraine), Kasper Larsen (Denmark), Alessandro Segafredo (Italy), Ole Bjorvik Holm (Norway). Of course, we would see a higher rate of stars coming from these countries if they had the same access to training opportunities as Canadian boys. However, they still exist. There are still athletes who reach this level and even dominate. Canadian women receive significantly better training opportunities than these boys from non-hockey countries. Even if the rate of WHL athletes should be lower, it should not be zero if the difference was training opportunities.
And that's why I don't think your parallel is callous but I think it's inaccurate. O'Ree reached the NHL. Primerano has not reached the WHL.
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
Listen, this whole thing is about money. It’s always about money. Male participation in sports is cratering and that was before COVID. Now it’s slowly coming off life support, mostly because of donations and grants. One way they did it was promote female participation. Totally standard business practice — promote female inclusion by getting more females involved. Now that a girl can be drafted in the WHL, why not the NHL as well? That’s what they want — young girls to be just as eager to play hockey and dream big like their male counterparts.
Now, the CHL suits probably don’t want women playing in a men’s league, but they’re broke, and they hate admitting that they’re broke because it scares away potential investors. Thats why you get gambling ads shoved down your throat.
Another way to make up for the massive losses is tapping into nonstandard demographics. White males are the overwhelmingly dominant demographic in every hockey category, while women make up a tiny fraction of hockey revenues. Minorities even smaller. These facts are driving “Hockey is for Everyone” more than just love for one another. It briefs well to say that you’re doing it out of decency, but the reality is most women and minorities here the U.S. and around the world don’t give a flying f*** about hockey because all they see is a sea of white dudes. Well, white dudes in Canada are starting to bail on hockey, so Gary, being the astute business man that he is, approved the full-court press to get more females and non-white males involved in the sport. That’s mainly why they went full throttle with BLM, LGBTQ, and minority communities. Totally fine with it, BTW l, and it’s clearly a smart business model.
I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that she plays in the WHL. Nobody will buy tickets just because she was drafted. If she plays, it increases the chance that females become fans and spend money to watch her.
Again, it’s ALWAYS, about money.
Now, the CHL suits probably don’t want women playing in a men’s league, but they’re broke, and they hate admitting that they’re broke because it scares away potential investors. Thats why you get gambling ads shoved down your throat.
Another way to make up for the massive losses is tapping into nonstandard demographics. White males are the overwhelmingly dominant demographic in every hockey category, while women make up a tiny fraction of hockey revenues. Minorities even smaller. These facts are driving “Hockey is for Everyone” more than just love for one another. It briefs well to say that you’re doing it out of decency, but the reality is most women and minorities here the U.S. and around the world don’t give a flying f*** about hockey because all they see is a sea of white dudes. Well, white dudes in Canada are starting to bail on hockey, so Gary, being the astute business man that he is, approved the full-court press to get more females and non-white males involved in the sport. That’s mainly why they went full throttle with BLM, LGBTQ, and minority communities. Totally fine with it, BTW l, and it’s clearly a smart business model.
I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that she plays in the WHL. Nobody will buy tickets just because she was drafted. If she plays, it increases the chance that females become fans and spend money to watch her.
Again, it’s ALWAYS, about money.
MarkusNaslund19
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2005
- 5,813
- 8,815
Oh no...
Dude, I'm as leftist as they come but there are just biological differences, it's not a conspiracy. And arguably the best female player ever struggled in a Finnish Div III league, MPP would not 'dominate' in the WHL because she wouldn't be good enough to make a team.
She's a hell of a player, and it would be awesome if it weren't true, but the biologically male body is just made for strength, speed, and withstanding impact in a way that the female body isn't.
I think that it's a good thing she was drafted and a nice story and hope she does well.
But the reality is that almost zero 13th rounders even make it to the WHL and they certainly don't get a phone call from one of the co owners who no doubt liked the publicity.
I get that her being drafted is "historical" but I doubt that anyone in the Giants organizations seriously thinks that she will develop into a WHL player.
That's just the reality of things.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | Y'all Got Any Good Goalies?- Latest: TheGingaNinja
-
