Parent

			    WOMEN-IN-HOCKEY Digest 369

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: US vs Canada
	by "Abigail S. Clabough" 
  2) Re: US vs Canada
	by Roger Dewar 
  3) Women's Roller Hockey League Starting in New Jersey
	by Andria Hunter 
  4) Re: US vs Canada
	by Ingrid Moon 
  5) Re: US vs Canada
	by email@hidden (Patti Jankun)
  6) Three Nations Tournament 
	by "Elmer A. Laydon" 
  7) Re: Three Nations Tournament 
	by email@hidden
  8) skates
	by email@hidden (MISS CAROLYN R SIMON)
  9) Pelvic Protectors
	by Lea and Robert Sanford 
 10) Re: Women - no right to play.........
	by Lea and Robert Sanford 
 11) menvswomen
	by Lea and Robert Sanford 
 12) Re: Three Nations Tournament 
	by Lara Eichhorn 
 13) Re: Three Nations Tournament 
	by email@hidden
 14) Re: Three Nations Tournament 
	by Roger Dewar 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 06:12:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "Abigail S. Clabough" 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: US vs Canada
Message-ID: 


If you remember my message from last week, you'll recall that I was pretty
disgusted at the lack of people at the USA-Finland game in Canton, NY.
But let's remember, they didn't even televise the World Cup in most of the
US either.  The only reason I got to watch it at home is because we get
CBC up here in the North Country.

Abby Clabough
Clarkson Edge - Women's Hockey
email@hidden


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:04:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Roger Dewar 
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: US vs Canada
Message-ID: 

At 05:41 PM 11/3/96 -0800, you wrote:
>I was able to pick up the US vs Canada game off of one of the Canadian 
>satellites Saturday afternoon. It was a good game - especially 
>enjoyable since six players from the Polar Bears are on the US team. It's 
>just too bad that no US broadcaster picked it up. I think this would have 
>gone a long way towards giving womens/girls hockey more recognition in 
>the US.
>
>Elmer Laydon 
>Connecticut Polar Bears
>http://www.iconn.net/elaydon/bears.htm
>
>I know what you mean, Elmer.  We are having trouble here in Ontario getting
any broadcasters interested in covering the upcoming World Championships in
April.  We have so far interested TSN in covering the Gold Medal game, but
that's all.  We approached the Fox Network and EPSN to do the game here in
London (April 3,1997) between Sweden and team USA.  We felt that this game
should be one of the most entertaining games of the tournament, but the
netwokrks don't seem to feel the same way.

I think the only way to change it is to write, phone or fax the networks and
ask them if they are carrying the games, and after the games, write and
phone to complain that you wanted the games covered.  They need input from us.


Roger Dewar
Communications Officer
London Devilettes Girls Hockey Association
Chairperson
London Game Site Committee
1997 Women's World Hockey Championships


------------------------------

Date: 	Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:01:08 -0500
From: Andria Hunter 
To: email@hidden
Subject: Women's Roller Hockey League Starting in New Jersey
Message-ID: 

I was asked to pass this message along to this mailing list:

* From: email@hidden (Nancy)
* Date:   Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:20:24
* 
* I am a beginner roller hockey player in New Jersey.  There is an
* in-line skating rink near my home and one of the owner's wants to
* create a women's league.  I would appreciate it if you would send an
* internet message for me to let women know there is a potential
* league for them here in N.J.  The rink is called the In-line Skating
* Club of America and it's in Wallington, NJ.  The phone number is
* 201-473-8900 and any women interested should sign up asap.  Thanks.
* Nancy

Andria

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 11:30:25 -0800
From: Ingrid Moon 
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: US vs Canada
Message-ID: 

Elmer A. Laydon wrote:
> 
> I was able to pick up the US vs Canada game off of one of the Canadian
> satellites Saturday afternoon. It was a good game - especially
> enjoyable since six players from the Polar Bears are on the US team. It's
> just too bad that no US broadcaster picked it up. I think this would have
> gone a long way towards giving womens/girls hockey more recognition in
> the US.
> 
> Elmer Laydon
> Connecticut Polar Bears
> http://www.iconn.net/elaydon/bears.htm

Maybe you could sell us copies?  I'd buy....

Ingrid


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:28:10 -0500
From: email@hidden (Patti Jankun)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: US vs Canada
Message-ID: 


I was in Florida the weekend of the tourney and there was an article in
the WestPalm Beach Post 
about it, small but still there....

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 17:56:32 -0800
From: "Elmer A. Laydon" 
To: email@hidden
Subject: Three Nations Tournament 
Message-ID: 

During the final game of the Three Nations Tournament did anyone hear Don 
Cherry's comment about how they should make the puck smaller and lighter 
for the women so they can do some of the same things that the big NHL 
guys can do? 

Did he really say that or was I hearing things? I didn't rewind the tape 
yet to double check.

Next idea Don.....

Elmer

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:50:03 -0500
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Three Nations Tournament 
Message-ID: 

Yup, I heard him, Elmer.  I believe the rational from Don was that women
aren't 260 and 6'4" like Eric Lindros.  He did qualify that "alot of people
aren't going to like this...." I give him some credit for realizing that
ahead of time.  But all of that credit went down the drain when the
interviewer agreed that "with lighter wrists" it might make sense for the
girl's game. (Yuck)

I'll switch to a lighter puck when I can switch to a lighter puck for both my
boy's Mite and Squirt teams! :-)

Does anyone out there in Canada have a number (address? e-mail? phone?) with
which we can reach CBC and let them know how glad we were that they put on
the show? (With empathetic frustration to those of you who don't live close
enough to the border).

Regards,
Sue Edwards

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  4 Nov 1996 18:24:08, -0500
From: email@hidden (MISS CAROLYN R SIMON)
To: email@hidden
Subject: skates
Message-ID: 

Julie wrote:

"Just a word of caution about buying kids' skates if you have small 
feet...Yes, they're cheaper, but I've found that they have less ankle 
support which breaks down more quickly."

Perhaps she has found this, but I don't think it's true. I skate on 
an average of 5-6 times per week and have had the same pair of Bauer 
Supreme Composites (the older style) for a year and a half. I wear a 
skate size of 4 1/2 and except for the blade which I need to get 
replaced, the boot is in great condition. I go to public sessions 2 
of those 5 days and the rest are either full speed practices or games.
 I am only 5'3 but no lightweight...I have put those skates through a 
lot and not treated them kindly...after all I did wear them 3 times a 
day for 11 days at camp this summer. They have lasted through all 
this, and I expect them to last another 1-2 years if I treat them the 
same.

So do not be wary of boys size skates...They are made equally well as 
men's skates and last as long too! 

         -Carolyn #21
          New Jersey Selects

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 18:17:49 +0000
From: Lea and Robert Sanford 
To: Hockey List 
Subject: Pelvic Protectors
Message-ID: 

Sorry I am late posting on this subject, but I just found my computer
after moving!

I have found a really cool product -- Hockey Joc Women's Compression
Short, a underwear/garter belt/pelvic protector.
The shorts have a pocket and removable protector.  I have found the
protector that comes with it to be comfortable and my cooper protector
also fits in the pocket.  
The short comes in two styles - with either clips or velcro for your
socks.  
(The short even comes in XL, for those of us who are full figured!)

I have talked to the hockey joc makers and they said that all of thier
products will accept a female protector in the pockets.  If a product is
not listed as women's you just have to ask for a women's version when
you order.  I think I got mine from Hockey One, but I'm not sure (it may
have been Boston Hockey).

This is so much more comfortable than all the separate layers, and the
shorts feel devine.  (This is also much cooler for those of you in
warmer climes or for roller hockey.)

--Lea


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 18:34:39 +0000
From: Lea and Robert Sanford 
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Women - no right to play.........
Message-ID: 

Christina McCormick wrote:
> 

> 
> Here in Australia, we've got the same problem.  Here we have on average about 10
> girls playing on each age level, but the VIHA ( the local league bosses)  ahve just
> decided to bring in a ruling that girls can only play in Junior C (under 13's)
> and in seniour C (open age, non contact)  Which means small girls have to go from
> playing boys about their age and their height/weight, to playing HUGE fully grown
> men!
> 

Chris,  

I am not going to address the overall inequity that women's hockey seems
to be suffering from in Austrailia, but I do want to point out that the
particular ruling discussed above makes sence to me.  It is my
understanding that it is at age 13 that boys go to full checking
hockey.  I would guess that is the reason for prohibiting girls from
those age groups.  We occasionally have girls play in our adult
recreational leaguse and I have seen some pretty small girls skate
circles around those HUGE men.  Although I would allow my daughter to
play full check with the teen-age boys, I would be more concerned for
her safety with them than with the recreational men.

If you are going to argue against the above ruling, I would argue that
playing with the recreational men does not give the girls as much chance
to develop thier skills, thus making them less competetive than girls
who play competitively with other youth.  

--Lea


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 18:56:24 +0000
From: Lea and Robert Sanford 
To: Hockey List 
Subject: menvswomen
Message-ID: 

Agian, sorry to be late comming in on this thread....

I wanted to point out that when discussing the differences between mens
hockey and women's hockey, you also have to differentiate  between
levels of play.  

(most) Recreational hockey is geared for people who need to work to pay
for hockey and therefore can't afford the injuries associated with full
checking hockey.  

I find that our women's drop-ins is alot rougher than the men's
recreational play.  I don't know why, but I tend to take the women's
game more personally (I think we all do) and it occasionally gets almost
mean.  In a game, a man has to push me alot farther before I get mad;
with the women, I get alot angrier alot faster.  Not that I would trade
playing with the women, but I do have to watch myself to keep it fun.  

Am I alone in this?

Lea


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:11:13 -0500
From: Lara Eichhorn 
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Three Nations Tournament 
Message-ID: 

At 03:07 PM 11/4/96 -0800, you wrote:
>During the final game of the Three Nations Tournament did anyone hear Don 
>Cherry's comment about how they should make the puck smaller and lighter 
>for the women so they can do some of the same things that the big NHL 
>guys can do? 
>
>Did he really say that or was I hearing things? I didn't rewind the tape 
>yet to double check.
>
>Next idea Don.....
>
>Elmer
>
>

Hi!

I'm not sure but I think he said the women actually were (or maybe they were
just thinking of) using a smaller puck and he thinks that would be good in
the NHL too.  I think he meant that the women handled the puck better and
could do more with it instead of having to use only their physical strength
to make their way to the net, like most NHLers do.  I only watched it once
while it was on, but I'm pretty sure he meant whatever he did say in a good
way.  He actually seems to like women's hockey for once in his life.

Lara Eichhorn
email@hidden


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:16:01 -0500
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Three Nations Tournament 
Message-ID: 

Hi All,

Absolutely no way are we going to change women's hockey as far as puck size
goes.  If anyone tries to I will do everything possible to stop it from
happening.  I am sick of hearing how women have to use smaller balls in
basketball and softball and who knows what other ball games, just so it will
be easier for us 'little women'.

Women can do anything they want and play any game they want with any size
equipment they want!!!!!!!!!!!

Joan

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 21:16:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Roger Dewar 
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Three Nations Tournament 
Message-ID: 

At 03:51 PM 11/4/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>Does anyone out there in Canada have a number (address? e-mail? phone?) with
>which we can reach CBC and let them know how glad we were that they put on
>the show? (With empathetic frustration to those of you who don't live close
>enough to the border).
>
>Regards,
>Sue Edwards
>
>Hi Sue:

from north of the border.  I enjoyed the game very much, and I was very
happy to learn that CBC was going to carry the game...even if it was a week
later.  What a great game!

You can e-mail CBC Sports at

 email@hidden.

They have a web site at

http://www.tv.cbc.ca/sports/


Please write them...and have everyone else you know do it too, so they will
carry the World Championships in April 1997.  Now that would be something.

Roger Dewar
Communications Officer
London Devilettes Girls Hockey Association
Chairperson
London Game Site Committee
1997 Women's World Hockey Championships


------------------------------

End of WOMEN-IN-HOCKEY Digest 369
*********************************