Mailing List Archives

Parent
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:00:15 -0500
To: email@hidden
From: Debbie Minden 
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
Cc: email@hidden
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
Precedence: bulk
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

As far as the lighter pucks go, my guess is that the physics of the 
whole thing nake it a scam.  I don't think the difference in weight 
and size make a big difference when the properties of ice and the 
forces used in hockey are taken into account.

In defence of smaller soft balls.  They really do fit a smaller hand 
better. I thought it was too bad they were not smart enough to let 8 
year old boys use them so they could stop throwing like girls. ;-)


Debbie

Received: from white.lambton.on.ca (white.lambton.on.ca [192.139.190.2])
  by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f0VJCUj32352 for
  ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:12:30 -0800
Received: from lambton.on.ca (boccanfuso.lambton.on.ca
  [192.139.190.143]) by white.lambton.on.ca (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP
  id f0VJHCe02715; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:17:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: 
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:18:35 -0500
From: George Boccanfuso 
Reply-To: email@hidden
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Debbie Minden 
CC: email@hidden, email@hidden
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
References: 
  
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
  x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: 
List-Post: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

How weird we were just talking about heavier pucks for practice so the
game pucks are easier to shoot. Leave hockey alone the weight of the
puck makes no difference.

Received: from mednet.swmed.edu (swnw124.swmed.edu [199.165.152.124]) by
  plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f0VItOj31738 for
  ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:55:24 -0800
Received: from SWSMTP-Message_Server by mednet.swmed.edu with
  Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:59:52 -0600
Message-Id: 
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:59:44 -0600
From: "Karen Harker" 
To: 
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: 
List-Post: 
List-Subscribe: ,
	
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
	
List-Archive: 

It is quite possible that the weight of the pucks may not make any difference
to the game, in which case the rest of my point is moot.

However, regarding the other discussions on this, my opinions differ. If it
were probable that women would eventually be playing men at collegiate,
semi-pro, or professional levels, then it would be disadvantageous for
aspiring women to learn to shoot and stickhandle lighter pucks.

However, given that the situation will likely remain segregated at these
levels, I consider making necessary adjustments to the equipment acceptable.
Parents of young children with promising musical talent will often start them
out on scaled-down instruments so that they learn to play on an instrument
that fits their hands so that they don't need to re-learn finger placement
when they grow.

Why force ourselves to use a greater ratio of effort/size to shoot a puck than
a man?

I've always thought that basketball programs for all ages and genders should
lower the net so that it is relative to the average height of the group. This
way, kids and young women don't learn poor shooting skills because the
equipment does not fit them. Similarly, I've also thought that, given the
increase in the average height of basketball players, the net should be raised
the same rate.

Would you consider using a stick that is the same length of the average male
player? Relative-size adjustments should not be considered demeaning to the
group. It is, to use the parlance of today, "leveling the playing field."

Regarding the issue of "women's hockey is a different game from men's hockey",
the main reason for this is the lack of checking, not the weight of the puck.
Conservatism in sports is high and often advancements are refused solely to
save the "purity" of the sport. What value is there in having a puck that's
harder to shoot? It's not nearly has hard for a 6'5" man with 20" arms than it
is for a 5'8" woman with 15" arms (actually, I'm 5'2" and I've never measured
my arms; I was trying to guess at a more average-sized woman). As much as I
work lifting weights, I will never have 20" arms.  However, I would like to
shoot a puck that is just as easy or just as hard to shoot as the average man,
not harder.

Karen Harker



>>> Debbie Minden  1/31/01 5:00:15 AM >>>
As far as the lighter pucks go, my guess is that the physics of the
whole thing nake it a scam.  I don't think the difference in weight
and size make a big difference when the properties of ice and the
forces used in hockey are taken into account.


Debbie