URL:http://www.thestar.com/thestar/editorial/sports/970406SPC6_SP-DIMANNO6.html Toronto Star Home Page April 6, 1997 Women's hockey isn't ready for prime time just yet [By Rosie Dimanno] KITCHENER - ATHLETES, and their coaching tutors, often speak about striving for a Personal Best. Usually, this is an indication that they can't beat anyone else. But sometimes, infrequently, it means the competitor is in a league of his/her own. This can be viewed as a remarkable achievement, or - with no one around to offer a challenge - as pretty lousy entertainment. The Canadian wiminz hockey team has proven they can slaughter the distaff contingent of most countries currently engaging in the shinny wars. There was a near calamity yesterday against the dogged Finns, and one hell of an exciting finish - suspense being a rarity at the world women's championship - before the world (and the worlds) unfolded as it should, with Canada 2-1 victors. But when coach Shannon Miller says this Canuck squad views this elite tournament as a means of measuring themselves against themselves, obviously she ain't kidding. ``We don't measure ourselves against anybody else,'' Miller opined on the weekend. ``What we try to do is improve on our past performances. Back in October, we weren't doing very well at all.'' This is a relative opinion. The national team has lost just one elite level international game, to the Americans, in the Three Nations Cup. In this tournament, their round-robin scores were lopsided-wonky: 6-0, 9-1, 7-1. They outshot the Swiss 62-5, the Russians 56-7 and the Chinese - built up by the media as comers - 42-12. The Canadians are a colossus astride the world of women's hockey. But it's a tiny, mewling universe. It's an unfair fight. And that cannot be a good thing for the evolution of this sport. There is nothing honorable, or sporting, about such grotesque mismatches. And the fact Canadian men set a similar standard at the worlds, back when the earth was flat, does not make it any more attractive now. Why are we prematurely legitimizing women's hockey, to the extent of convening world championships and, come next February, debuting Olympic inclusion, when there are only three countries that can play this game? Because this is an exercise in auto-erotic love? ``Women's hockey is in its infancy stage around the world,'' argues Miller. ``In 10 years, there will be a whole different scenario. You have to provide the carrot of the Olympics so that other countries can develop the sport, more people will get excited about it and parents will enrol their daughters in hockey.'' Maybe. Although it's hard to envision the Swiss families Robinson eagerly shlepping their young Heidis to the rink after watching their countrywomen getting waxed on the world stage. Moreover, shouldn't development precede Olympic inclusion? The greedy Lords of the Ring have already devalued the Olympics enough, by letting eccentric events (synchronized swimming) and regionalized sports (curling) into the quadrennial show. Women's hockey is too embryonic, outside of North America, and too unskilled in execution, even here, to justify the Olympic embrace. What it does do, however, is allow the International Olympic Committee to pad the number of female participants at the Games. At the same time, there has been a weird chivalry toward Canada's female hockey players, particularly in the male-dominated media; a suggestion that they're somehow more passionate and idealistic, more endearing, more consumed with a pure love of the game, unlike their spoiled male counterparts. This is a fairy tale, patronizing and paternalistic. And if these women are tough enough to play hockey - which they are - then they're tough enough not to be treated like princesses. _________________________________________________________________ Rosie DiManno's column appears every Sunday in the sports section. Contents copyright © 1996, 1997, The Toronto Star. User interface, selection and arrangement copyright © 1996, 1997 Torstar Electronic Publishing Ltd.