URL:http://www.thestar.com/thestar/editorial/sports/970408SPB1d_SP-OPINION8.html Toronto Star Home Page April 8, 1997 OPINION _________________________________________________________________ Critics of women's hockey completely missing point By Randy Starkman - Toronto Star Sports Reporter The bodychecking rule aside, the women's world hockey championships featured its fair share of thunderous hits and chippy play. The cheap shots, however, weren't limited to the ice. [photo] FRANK GUNN / CP THEY EARNED IT: Players such as Canada's Laura Schuler, shown admiring gold medal early yesterday, deserve shot at Olympic glory. It was suggested in a number of quarters - and in supremely snarky fashion - that women's hockey has no business being at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano. As a sport in its relative infancy, women's hockey is an easy target. While the critics hit their mark, they totally missed the point. The biggest argument against the inclusion of women's hockey in Nagano is that the sport is not competitive enough, that the U.S. and Canada are leagues above the opposition and that there are only two other teams, Finland and China, which have a remote chance of upsetting them. So, what makes women's hockey so different than men's basketball at the Olympics or any other team sport for that matter? The naysayers claim the International Olympic Committee should have at least waited until the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City to give women's hockey more time to achieve a balance of power. Again, they just don't get it. Without the Olympics as a carrot to dangle in front of hockey and sports federations around the world, women's hockey doesn't have the remotest chance of progressing. The Olympics is the lifeline for women's hockey. For the first time, many of the players - including the Canadians - will have the opportunity to train on a full-time basis. This will be their first chance ever to truly discover how good they can be. The world championships in Kitchener demonstrated that while they're long on heart and desire, many of the women's players are short on technique and general hockey sense. Most don't have much of a slapshot, for instance. Those are things that can only be mastered with lots of practice. Swedish women's coach Bengt Ohlson, who has been to about 15 men's world championships and four Olympics and runs a hockey school where Mats Sundin coaches in the summer, didn't see his first women's game until last October. He believes they ``can improve so many things so quickly'' with increased ice time. Ohlson doesn't expect dedication to be a problem. Swedish goaltender Lotta Gothesson delivers the mail in Sweden. It costs her about three weeks' vacation and $5,000 yearly to pursue her sport. The Canadian team has countless similar stories. Having worked with both the men and the women, Ohlson is convinced that the women play more for the love of the game. One critic opined that it was patronizing for male reporters to suggest women are more idealistic and passionate than men in chasing their Olympic hockey dream. Yeah, those NHLers sure are making a lot of sacrifices to compete in Nagano. They're already whining about the long trip and prospective accommodations. What's really patronizing is suggesting the women don't deserve a chance. Another vocal opponent of the addition of women's hockey on the Olympic roster sniffed that the IOC wasn't following its own sports qualification guidelines and was simply acting out of political correctness. Well, at least it's a switch from their usual motivation - greed. Catherine Smith, a 9-year-old novice hockey player who attended most of the games in Kitchener, said she wasn't concerned about the reasons behind including women's hockey in the Olympics. ``I usually don't watch all of the Olympics. I just watch the hockey and I was hoping the women would be there some day,'' said Catherine. Contents copyright © 1996, 1997, The Toronto Star. User interface, selection and arrangement copyright © 1996, 1997 Torstar Electronic Publishing Ltd.