Fairness Delayed, But Finally Fairness

Welcome to 2009, Hockey Hall of Fame.

The prestigious institution may have been a little late to the party, or in this case, rather slow in understanding the explosive growth of women's hockey in North America and Europe.

But the important thing is that they have managed to get there, and by next year women will finally find themselves honored members in the HHOF.

The hall announced changes today that starting in 2010, a maximum of four men and two women will be eligible for annual induction. Until now, women had to compete directly against men, and given the fact many members of the selection committee either had no knowledge of women's hockey or were sworn against allowing women to be recognized in this way, the secretive organization had managed to keep the doors shut tight to women.

It was embarrassing to women and females who had been pioneers in the game.

But it was, as was argued here many times, far more embarrassing to the hall, an old boy's club if there ever was one.

But they've seen the light - finally - and that's fantastic. There will be those who will quibble with the process, suggesting there are women who are every bit as qualified as men and shouldn't need a separate category.

But at this point, that's quibbling indeed.

In fact, the hall has even made sure the numbers of men and women to be inducted every year will be reviewed every five years. Who knows, maybe down the road they'll be allowing the same number of men and women every year.

But for now this is fair. All those who argued it would never, ever happen and should never, ever happen have been proven wrong.

Hockey, it seems, can evolve. Congratulations to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Comments

[T Mark]

How would the women fare against junior Men's competition ? They can't even dominate boys teams: in 2006 the women's national team - that has been together for years and dominates the rest of the world's women (with the US) international competition were only .500 against midget boys. Hayley Wickenheiser did play men's pro hockey, but not at anywhere near the highest levels, and then not very well.

[DamienCox]

Damien here. . .It constantly amazes me that people trot out the same, tired old arguments for certain subjects as though those arguments were somehow new and brilliant, and those that argue that women's hockey is of little value because they're nowhere near as talented as men is one of those. The favorite one is that the Canadian national women's hockey team couldn't beat a Jr. C team.
To that argument all I can say is, WHO CARES?
In what sport in the talent of a female judged in terms of how she would fare against males? By that absurd logic, no elite female in track and field, basketball, football, baseball, tennis and golf can ever be considered world class because they won't be as good as the best men in the sport.
NO ONE IS SAYING HAYLEY WICKENHEISER IS AS GOOD AS STEVE YZERMAN. You can't compare the two. What we are saying is that within the context of women's hockey, certain women are worth recognizing, particularly those who contribute to the growth of the sport and compete on an international level.
It's really pretty simple.

[Tabber]

Yup, Damien, pretty simple, unfrtunately still too simple for some to grasp. Kinda gives away the intellectual level of those whining, though, doesn't it?!?!

[steve]

Dave, I'm glad you replied, because I appreciated the thought you put into your comments above.

"As has already been mentioned, it's not the "NHL Hall of Fame", it's the "Hockey Hall of Fame". The NHL is not the only league out there, and I would think that any player that excels in their chosen league (based on their performance in THAT league) should be worthy of being looked at."

I absolutely recognize that it's the "Hockey" Hall of Fame, not the "NHL" Hall of Fame and have no issue whatsoever with the inclusion of players that were obviously world-class but never had the opportunity to showcase their skills in the NHL during their prime. An NHL career should certainly not be required.

I disagree that success in a chosen league should qualify one for inclusion (my local beer league should hardly suffice), but appreciate your consistency and fairness to all less-than world-class hockey players.

"If you're going to only take the cream of the crop in the entire world based on overall skill in comparison with everyone else in everyother league (basically saying the playing field is level across all levels), then of course only NHL players will be inducted from here to eternity as the NHL is the best league in the world. Besides, given that some players may never play in the NHL (some players may choose to stay in their homeland or play in another league by choice, not lack of skill), how can anyone conclusively deduce how that person may have performed in the NHL if the NHL is what you want to use as the benchmark for making it into the Hall?"

While I agree that an absolute measurement would be impossible and debates will happen, surely this isn't too difficult a problem. I want to emphasize that it's absolutely not about how one would perform in the NHL, but rather how one performs relative to the other great players of one's time. So, for example, olympic participation, success in the World Cup, and other such prestigious international competitions are extremely helpful. I think it's safe to say that any player not selected to his national team is unlikely to be a legitimate HHOF member, but if the circumstance happened to arise where a player (say in the Swedish Elite League) happened for some reason to never represent his country internationally yet was being argued for as a HHOF candidate it seems reasonable -- given the significantly less-than world-class level of competition in such a league -- to expect him to dominate the league in an extraordinary fashion if he is indeed such a marvelous hockey player.

"And as well again, it's not strictly about numbers posted, it's about one's contribution to the game on the whole."

Agreed. But that's what the "Builder" category is for.

"

P.S. it's already accepted that the women playing hockey are not phsyically as big, strong, as or fast as the men that are playing at the elite level and they never will be, so you can say it's all about not "lowering world class standards" as much as you want, but given the facts, that automatically translate into a sexist argument because the men will always (by way of evolution, and natural human biology) be bigger, faster, and stronger. This fact should not prevent a woman from excelling against HER competitors throughout her career thus earning herself a spot in the Hockey Hall of Fame."

Fine, so there never will be a world-class woman hockey player. Biology prevents it (or at least makes it unlikely). It doesn't follow from that that we should therefore let them in anyway because they "did their best". How many guys worked their butt off to make it to the NHL never to make it because they simply never had the physical skills that Crosby has? To my mind, what you're proposing waters-down the HOF by making "doing one's best" the primary criteria instead of "having one's best be better than everyone else's best". Lot of people do their best and fail to become world-class hockey players. The fact that some of them are now women should not grant them a special exemption into the HHOF.

[Dave So]

Steve: First of all, many thanks for the reply, as well as the kudos for a well written post.. And thanks as well for managing to keep the discussion civil, as so many times debates surrounding any aspect of hockey have a way of getting out of hand due to the passion of both sides of the given debate.

Having said that, I recognize that my argument for excelling in one's chosen league does leave the loophole for the inclusion of "beer league" players. I think it would be agreed upon by all that anyone choosing to play at a less than elite (or semi-elite) level would not be getting looked at as a candidate for inclusion to the HHOF. But if one plays at a highly competitive level whether it be the NHL, the Russian League, or European leagues, as well as (or on) the international stage (world championships, olympics, etc), that their domination in whichever of those leagues they play in would be worthy of consideration at the end of their career (in my opinion).

I don't think the idea of "doing one's best" is what I was trying to hit upon, as I would suspect that any athlete worth their salt ALWAYS does their best regardless of the level of success they attain. There will be world-class women hockey players... but likely it will only ever be in comparison to other women hockey players. I wouldn't think it proper to compare women to Jr. A boys players or NHL players, or anything of that sort anyways, as there's no comparison to be made as it's similar to apples and oranges. You wouldn't compare Dr. Seuss to Charles Dickens, even though both are writers, they were of a different genre (which is how I see various levels of hockey), though in their own right they were amongst the best at what they did.

So I would perhaps suggest that the HHOF begin to have different categories within the category of "player" so that each and every individual who excels at a high level of competition have a fair shot, rather than having to force everyone to measure up the NHL standard... Either that or begin an NHL HHOF so that the NHLers have their own "protected" Hall. I would say that they would still be eligible for inclusion of the regular HHOF as the current Hall is all encompassing. If people have a problem with that, there's certainly nothing wrong with the other various bodies starting their own individual Halls, but I would at that point say it's petty.

[louis vuitton]

P.S. it's already accepted that the women playing hockey are not phsyically as big, strong, as or fast as the men that are playing at the elite level and they never will be, so you can say it's all about not "lowering world class standards" as much as you want, but given the facts, that automatically translate into a sexist argument because the men will always (by way of evolution, and natural human biology) be bigger, faster, and stronger. This fact should not prevent a woman from excelling against HER competitors throughout her career thus earning herself a spot in the Hockey Hall of Fame.