Depending on your perspective on such things, Thursday night's Canada-U.S. gold medal women's hockey game is either a much-anticipated powerhouse battle, or the merciful end to a farcical tournament that has no business in the Olympics.
EMAIL
| PRINT
| REPORT TYPO
| SEND YOUR FEEDBACK
|
Women's hockey hardly Games' only dubious sport
- February 25, 2010 5:26 PM |
- By Erin Valois
Story provided by
By Scott Stinson, National Post
Depending on your perspective on such things, Thursday night's Canada-U.S. gold medal women's hockey game is either a much-anticipated powerhouse battle, or the merciful end to a farcical tournament that has no business in the Olympics.
The detractors have some convincing numbers in their favour. Start with 86-4. The first number is the combined number of goals Canada and the United States have scored as each romped through the Olympic tournament undefeated. The second number is the combined amount of goals the gold-medal contenders have allowed. In other words, the talent pool is a little on the shallow side. It's more of a talent puddle. Or a talent accidental spill.
But those who say women's hockey should be in the Olympics argue, as the Post's Adam McDowell reported last week, that all the lopsided defeats are necessary step on the road to a deep, unpredictable competition. The Canadian men's team used to beat up on everyone decades ago, but over time the rest of the world caught up.
Some of the women's programs in the countries that participated in this Olympics have only dozens -- literally, dozens -- of registered players, compared with the tens of thousands girls and women who play hockey in Canada, so it will clearly take time for somewhere like Slovakia to develop the talent that could compete with Canada, as opposed to being doormats in an 18-0 loss.
I'm fine with women's hockey in the Olympics, and not just for those reasons. I'm fine with it because, really, one of the more annoying Olympic events is the endless debate over whether this or that sport should be in the Olympics.
It is foolish to think that the International Olympic Committee has only pure sporting ideals in mind when it determines what sports are in and what sports are out. The Winter Games in particular are a hotbed of weirdness.
You say that not enough women play hockey internationally to make it legitimate? How about the sport of nordic combined, in which participants both cross-country ski and ski jump? Are there leagues devoted to the pursuit of such an odd combination of skills somewhere? Does little Bjorn Svennsonn go to bed at night dreaming of one day being a decent cross-country skier and decent ski jumper -- not quite good enough to participate in either event alone, but good enough at both that he can be an Olympian?
Given Canada's strong performance in the "new" events at these and recent Games, I am loath to suggest that sports such as snowboard cross and moguls are not worthy of the Olympics. But the IOC seems to change these sports like they are underthings.
Ross Rebliagati, Canadian hero of the Nagano Games in 1998, won the gold in something called snowboard giant slalom. It was the first time that event was in the Olympics -- and also the last time. If an event is only in the Olympics once, isn't that an admission by the IOC that it shouldn't have been there in the first place?
This year's new addition was ski cross. You can almost imagine this being pitched to the IOC: "It's like snowboard cross, see, but here's the trick: It's on skis!" Will it be around come 2014? (For Canada's sake, one hopes so. We won a gold and had numerous other medal shots.)
Short-track speed skating? Fun to watch, but you get the feeling that the skaters might as well flip coins to determine the finish since so much is left to chance. Biathlon? Not fun to watch, although it would be if they used, say, rabbits instead of those little circle targets. Curling? Can be very fun to watch, although points deducted because participants can actually drink while playing it.
What does any of this have to do with women's hockey? Not much. It's just that there's no sense fussing about its worthiness. There are all kinds of crazy sports in there, for reasons only clear to the IOC, although most of them have to do with money. It's a big tent. The more the merrier. Pass me that curling stone. And that beer.
About the Author
- Bruce Arthur Bruce Arthur is the National Post's national sports columnist. A Vancouver native, he has been with the Post since 2001, and a columnist since 2005. He is covering his second Olympics, after the 2008 Games in Beijing. He expects these Games to be slightly less propagandistic, and for China to win slightly fewer medals.
- Joe O'Connor Joe O'Connor is a roving sports feature writer with an open-ended beat. He joined the National Post in 2002, and has spent the past seven years bouncing from sport to sport, offering fresh perspectives and delivering unique stories wherever he goes. Whether it has been getting Don Cherry to open up about his love life; George Chuvalo to talk about heartbreaking loss; or racing down the side of a mountain with former Crazy Canuck, Dave Irwin, the veteran Postie chases a story wherever it leads. Before joining the newspaper he was a two-time silver medalist at the National Magazine Awards. Vancouver will be his first Olympics.
Recent Entries
- To Iginla, Crosby's call sounded like gold
- "Iggy!" It's a scream Jarome Iginla has heard many times in his career. But never this loudly, never with so much urgency.... Continue reading this post
- Olympic Memories: Heartbreak and triumph
- For all the moments that made you so damned happy you wanted to cry -- the triumph of Alex Bilodeau and his brother Frederic, the delirium of Marianne St-Gelais as she watched her boyfriend Charles Hamelin win gold, the pure... Continue reading this post
- Olympic Memories: The strength of a lion
- It happened in a blink. A skier was skittering down a steep and icy slope at Whistler Olympic Park and disappeared into the woods.... Continue reading this post
