America WJC

Who do you think the goaltenders will be? And what about defencemen?

Here's my prediction for who USA will win their 2nd WJC in a row with.

Montoya
Schneider

Likens
Suter
Hunwick
Lewis
Nickerson
Thelen
Sharrow

(Johnson and Lashoff are probably better than some on that list but I think age will be the determing factor here but I do think atleast 1 of the 2 will make the team probably becauase of injury.)

Dowell
Fritsche
O'Sullivan
Stafford
Hennessy
Hensick
Pineault
Schremp
Earl
Kessell
Vigilante
Brown
Wheeler- (draft position helps here, plus if the forward list i provided is anywhere close to accurate, his size will be GREATLY needed....what is in US water that makes our forwards so short?)

Here's my prediction for who USA will win their 2nd WJC in a row with.

Montoya
Schneider

Likens
Suter
Hunwick
Lewis
Nickerson
Thelen
Sharrow

(Johnson and Lashoff are probably better than some on that list but I think age will be the determing factor here but I do think atleast 1 of the 2 will make the team probably becauase of injury.)

Dowell
Fritsche
O'Sullivan
Stafford
Hennessy
Hensick
Pineault
Schremp
Earl
Kessell
Vigilante
Brown
Wheeler- (draft position helps here, plus if the forward list i provided is anywhere close to accurate, his size will be GREATLY needed....what is in US water that makes our forwards so short?)


Team USA will not win a 2nd Gold Medal in a row with the team you listed. For starters, Fritsche, Stafford and Suter could all be in the NHL next season with any luck. If there is an NHL season, it's almost for sure Fritsche will be with Columbus and more than likely will not be released for Team USA. Stafford is doubtful to make the show, but hey, you never know? Suter could surprise and make the NHL?

If any or all of those guys aren't there, Team USA becomes extremely vulnerable. They have holes everywhere, other than in goal, but I would hope Montoya to really be on his game next year, cuz then we'll all see what he's really made of. The Americans were lucky to win the Gold medal game last year and will get destroyed by Canada this time around with that lineup.

Team USA will not win a 2nd Gold Medal in a row with the team you listed. For starters, Fritsche, Stafford and Suter could all be in the NHL next season with any luck. If there is an NHL season, it's almost for sure Fritsche will be with Columbus and more than likely will not be released for Team USA. Stafford is doubtful to make the show, but hey, you never know? Suter could surprise and make the NHL?

If any or all of those guys aren't there, Team USA becomes extremely vulnerable. They have holes everywhere, other than in goal, but I would hope Montoya to really be on his game next year, cuz then we'll all see what he's really made of. The Americans were lucky to win the Gold medal game last year and will get destroyed by Canada this time around with that lineup.

Are sour grapes as sour as I hear?

Having O'Sullivan, Schremp, Hensick and Kessel down the middle is quite awesome, but I don't know that here would be room for 4 small offensive centres.

Team USA will not win a 2nd Gold Medal in a row with the team you listed. For starters, Fritsche, Stafford and Suter could all be in the NHL next season with any luck. If there is an NHL season, it's almost for sure Fritsche will be with Columbus and more than likely will not be released for Team USA. Stafford is doubtful to make the show, but hey, you never know? Suter could surprise and make the NHL?

If any or all of those guys aren't there, Team USA becomes extremely vulnerable. They have holes everywhere, other than in goal, but I would hope Montoya to really be on his game next year, cuz then we'll all see what he's really made of. The Americans were lucky to win the Gold medal game last year and will get destroyed by Canada this time around with that lineup.

Suter couldn't come to terms with Nashville so he will be back. I think that Jack Johnson might be just as good, anyway. Team Canada would be lose a lot more from NHL callups than the U.S. in any event.

Having O'Sullivan, Schremp, Hensick and Kessel down the middle is quite awesome, but I don't know that here would be room for 4 small offensive centres.



You guys are really under estamating Josh Hennessy

Just watch, he will be the second best player in the Q behind Crosby

You guys are really under estamating Josh Hennessy

Just watch, he will be the second best player in the Q behind Crosby
with Maxime Talbot gone he is already

Robbie Earl... WOOOOO!

U S A!

U S A!

For starters, Fritsche, Stafford and Suter could all be in the NHL next season with any luck. If there is an NHL season, it's almost for sure Fritsche will be with Columbus and more than likely will not be released for Team USA.
Maybe he meant Tom Fritsche. He's a younger brother of Danny, played for the USA team on the U-18 WC this year in Minsk and just entered Ohio-State University.

Are sour grapes as sour as I hear?

Must be. It kills some people to give credit where credit is due I guess..... In all of his rambling, he does make a good point: the U.S. roster could be vulnerable depending on how many players stick with their NHL teams, but IMO, that probably won't be an issue, which is a benefit of having so many guys from the NCAA. A much differant dynamic than junior based players. Anyway, here's my team:


Goaltenders:

Al Montoya
Mike Brown

Defensemen:
Ryan Suter
Matt Hunwick
Jeff Likens
Matt Nickerson
Jim Sharrow
A.J. Thelen
Grant Lewis
Matt Lashoff

Forwards:
Patrick O'Sullivan
T.J. Hensick
Dan Fritsche
Josh Hennessey
Jake Dowell
Drew Stafford
Blake Wheeler
Phil Kessel
Adam Pineault
Ryan Callahan
Kevin Porter
Rob Schremp

Undersized, but as skilled as they come. Should challenge for a medal.

Must be. It kills some people to give credit where credit is due I guess..... In all of his rambling, he does make a good point: the U.S. roster could be vulnerable depending on how many players stick with their NHL teams, but IMO, that probably won't be an issue, which is a benefit of having so many guys from the NCAA. A much differant dynamic than junior based players. Anyway, here's my team:


Goaltenders:

Al Montoya
Mike Brown

Defensemen:
Ryan Suter
Matt Hunwick
Jeff Likens
Matt Nickerson
Jim Sharrow
A.J. Thelen
Grant Lewis
Matt Lashoff

Forwards:
Patrick O'Sullivan
T.J. Hensick
Dan Fritsche
Josh Hennessey
Jake Dowell
Drew Stafford
Blake Wheeler
Phil Kessel
Adam Pineault
Ryan Callahan
Kevin Porter
Rob Schremp

Undersized, but as skilled as they come. Should challenge for a medal.

Six or seven of those defensemen would not make Team Canada.

Six or seven of those defensemen would not make Team Canada.


No offense, but so what? That could probably be said year in and year out. Canada still hasn't won gold at the WJC's since '97. All that matters is they play solidly for the U.S. and work together as a team, just like last year.

Six or seven of those defensemen would not make Team Canada.

The only players that would make Canada would be:
Montoya
Suter ( on line for canada's 4th D spot with Belle)
Thelan (3rd D behind Phaneuf and Coburn)
O Sullivan ( First Line Center for Canada possibly)
Fritsche (top two lines)
Scremp ( Top two lines)
possibly Stafford (as a role player 11, 12th forward taking Cullitton or Dixons place)

Just my opinion BUT Canada at the junior level is so deep it's sick.
However the USA is a very good team and will challenge for a medal. With the right luck they could end up with the gold again.

I thought Schremp said he wouldn't play for Team USA after not being on last years team? Maybe the Oilers can talk some sense into him.

And I was under the impression that Suter was returning to Wisconsin, is he going to sign instead?

Either way, Canada, USA, Russia are all looking strong with Finland right there as well. I look forward to seeing Belarus as well, hope there's good tv coverage from North Dakota.

I look forward to seeing Belarus as well

Speaking of Belarus.... their best forward last year, Zakharov, is leaving the CHL for the AHL this year. Does anyone know if teams typically allow WJC eligible prospects to leave the minors to play in the tournament?

The only players that would make Canada would be:
Montoya
Suter ( on line for canada's 4th D spot with Belle)
Thelan (3rd D behind Phaneuf and Coburn)
O Sullivan ( First Line Center for Canada possibly)
Fritsche (top two lines)
Scremp ( Top two lines)
possibly Stafford (as a role player 11, 12th forward taking Cullitton or Dixons place)

Just my opinion BUT Canada at the junior level is so deep it's sick.
However the USA is a very good team and will challenge for a medal. With the right luck they could end up with the gold again.

There is no way O'Sullivan would be a 1st line center for Canada.

Suter could make Canada's D, but where do you put him if guys like Seabrook, Phaneuf, Belle, Coburn, Green, Barker play for the team. I doubt a guy like Thelen could unseat any of the Canadian D-men.

Must be. It kills some people to give credit where credit is due I guess..... In all of his rambling, he does make a good point: the U.S. roster could be vulnerable depending on how many players stick with their NHL teams, but IMO, that probably won't be an issue, which is a benefit of having so many guys from the NCAA. A much differant dynamic than junior based players. Anyway, here's my team:


Goaltenders:

Al Montoya
Mike Brown

Defensemen:
Ryan Suter
Matt Hunwick
Jeff Likens
Matt Nickerson
Jim Sharrow
A.J. Thelen
Grant Lewis
Matt Lashoff

Forwards:
Patrick O'Sullivan
T.J. Hensick
Dan Fritsche
Josh Hennessey
Jake Dowell
Drew Stafford
Blake Wheeler
Phil Kessel
Adam Pineault
Ryan Callahan
Kevin Porter
Rob Schremp

Undersized, but as skilled as they come. Should challenge for a medal.

That's a very good looking team and probably among the perfect they could take to the games.

However the problem is that the US rarely takes all the right players because of its obvious bias towards the CHL, while being loyal to the boys who run through the Development programs.

I highly doubt Matt Lashoff makes it, simply because in the past they've left CHL guys off in their draft year. Lashoff would probably only be the second unit powerplay guy and a used sparingly 5 on 5 defenseman, so my bet would be on them taking someone else.

It will also be interesting to see what they do with Matt Nickerson and Adam Pineault because they left college for other endeavours. Nickerson for the CHL, and Pineault (who knows yet). But I'd be curious as to if they'd leave these guys off the team simply because of their actions towards the US program.

But regardless it's going to be a very good looking team.

There is no way O'Sullivan would be a 1st line center for Canada.

Suter could make Canada's D, but where do you put him if guys like Seabrook, Phaneuf, Belle, Coburn, Green, Barker play for the team. I doubt a guy like Thelen could unseat any of the Canadian D-men.

I'd take Suter over any of Canada's defenseman save Phaneuf. IMO Phaneuf and Suter are the top defensive prospects in the game.

And I'd take Thelen over Belle and Green.

That's a very good looking team and probably among the perfect they could take to the games.

However the problem is that the US rarely takes all the right players because of its obvious bias towards the CHL, while being loyal to the boys who run through the Development programs.

I highly doubt Matt Lashoff makes it, simply because in the past they've left CHL guys off in their draft year. Lashoff would probably only be the second unit powerplay guy and a used sparingly 5 on 5 defenseman, so my bet would be on them taking someone else.

It will also be interesting to see what they do with Matt Nickerson and Adam Pineault because they left college for other endeavours. Nickerson for the CHL, and Pineault (who knows yet). But I'd be curious as to if they'd leave these guys off the team simply because of their actions towards the US program.

But regardless it's going to be a very good looking team.


You're right about the usual bias towards the CHL, but I always hope that will change! As for Lashoff, if not him, I'd probably name Jack Johnson. The thing with him is I think it will come down to either him or Kessel, and I'm not sure who will be taken (if at all). They play differant positions but are both very young.

There is no way O'Sullivan would be a 1st line center for Canada.

Suter could make Canada's D, but where do you put him if guys like Seabrook, Phaneuf, Belle, Coburn, Green, Barker play for the team. I doubt a guy like Thelen could unseat any of the Canadian D-men.


Where would you take him? How about ahead of everyone of the guys you have listed except for Phaneuf?

what is in US water that makes our forwards so short?)


The NBA and the NFL and baseball

I thought Schremp said he wouldn't play for Team USA after not being on last years team? Maybe the Oilers can talk some sense into him.

And I was under the impression that Suter was returning to Wisconsin, is he going to sign instead?

Either way, Canada, USA, Russia are all looking strong with Finland right there as well. I look forward to seeing Belarus as well, hope there's good tv coverage from North Dakota.


Schremp's comments of late (I'll try to find the link) indicate he would play if asked.

Speaking of Belarus.... their best forward last year, Zakharov, is leaving the CHL for the AHL this year. Does anyone know if teams typically allow WJC eligible prospects to leave the minors to play in the tournament?


It's up to the Blues if they want him there or not, I hope he goes, Belarus will need all the help they can get.

The NBA and the NFL and baseball

Exactly. Most of the country's top athletes are attracted to three sports, none of which are hockey.

Where's the talanted goal scorer Marc Andre Fleury? He played for US last year didn't he?

Where's the talanted goal scorer Marc Andre Fleury? He played for US last year didn't he?

:handclap: :lol

Where's the talanted goal scorer Marc Andre Fleury? He played for US last year didn't he?
Wow. That totally went over my head the first two times I read it.

It's up to the Blues if they want him there or not, I hope he goes, Belarus will need all the help they can get.

Unfortunately for Belarus, I doubt they'll let him go. If the they didn't own the Icecats, then I could see them letting him go.

There is no way O'Sullivan would be a 1st line center for Canada.

Suter could make Canada's D, but where do you put him if guys like Seabrook, Phaneuf, Belle, Coburn, Green, Barker play for the team. I doubt a guy like Thelen could unseat any of the Canadian D-men.

Iam the biggest Canadian hockey fan their is , but you have to give credit where credit is due....

O'Sullivan tore us apart last year the only Center better than him is Crosby... but it doesn't look like canadian hockey gave him the chance to show how good he was at last years WJHC because thye put him with guys who couldn't put the puck in the net....

Thelen is better than Green and on any given day could be better than Barker, especially in an international setting. Both equal talents in my books.

Suter was one of if not Americas best D last year and they beat us didn't they? He deserves a top 4 or 5 spot on our squad for sure.

and Montoya would be there for obvious reasons....

Speaking of Belarus.... their best forward last year, Zakharov, is leaving the CHL for the AHL this year. Does anyone know if teams typically allow WJC eligible prospects to leave the minors to play in the tournament?

Ooooh.....that hurt montreal, I bet.

He is a huge Kostitsyn fan........ ;)

I don't think Nickerson will be on the team for reasons other than anti-CHL bias. He is a very big dude, sure, but a notoriously poor skater and the international rules and rink will bring that deficiency to the forefront. Plus last year he had a knack for taking unnecessary, dumb penalties.

If it's close for the 7th D spot I assume Johnson will get the nod, as he's younger than the other candidates.

The US will be strong again next year, though they'll have to find the right balance between their little playmaking dudes and their larger counterparts. PP looks downright intimidating... Thelen, Hensick, Schremp, Kessel, O'Sullivan... nasty!

I don't think Nickerson will be on the team for reasons other than anti-CHL bias. He is a very big dude, sure, but a notoriously poor skater and the international rules and rink will bring that deficiency to the forefront. Plus last year he had a knack for taking unnecessary, dumb penalties.

If it's close for the 7th D spot I assume Johnson will get the nod, as he's younger than the other candidates.

The US will be strong again next year, though they'll have to find the right balance between their little playmaking dudes and their larger counterparts. PP looks downright intimidating... Thelen, Hensick, Schremp, Kessel, O'Sullivan... nasty!


Good points on Nickerson, I was just trying to give the blueline a little size. We'll see, maybe they'll just try to finesse the puck out of trouble, although that could be a problem against more physical opponents. The 2004/05 roster just might be the most skilled team the U.S. has ever iced. I hope they can make up for the size disadvantage.

While the Canadian team looks better on paper, the U.S. team has probably played more together.
With a one game take all final, they definetely have a good chance of taking it all.

Exactly. Most of the country's top athletes are attracted to three sports, none of which are hockey.


Ok, now you are saying a 6'11 basketball player or a 350lb defensive tackle or even a placekicker could've played hockey and if they had of, they would be better than an O'Sullivan, Schremp, Fritsche, Suter, Kessel, etc.???? What if a Thelen, O'Sullivan or a Suter had of played baseball, football or basketball, are you saying they wouldn't have excelled??? Are they inferior to all other athletes in other sports??

Who's a better athlete, Mario Lemieux or a Ken Griffey? How about a Mike Modano or a Peyton Manning??

Is Patrick Eaves too old for the next WJC?

Exactly. Most of the country's top athletes are attracted to three sports, none of which are hockey.
You better rethink that. You are saying the football or baseball athlete is better than the hockey athlete.
I agree a smaller share of the U.S. population goes out for hockey, but what makes you think that a 7'0 freak that plays basketball is better than the hockey athlete?

Good points on Nickerson, I was just trying to give the blueline a little size. We'll see, maybe they'll just try to finesse the puck out of trouble, although that could be a problem against more physical opponents. The 2004/05 roster just might be the most skilled team the U.S. has ever iced. I hope that can make up for the size disadvantage.

Disagree on Nickerson. There is a huge difference in overall team size between the U.S. and Canadian teams, and i think that the U.S. coaches would want Nickerson there as an equalizer. You know that the Canadians are going to be running guys like Hensick and Kessel every chance they get. Who is going to hold Phaneuf, Belle, Seabrooke, Stewert, Getzlaf etc., accountable if Nickerson isn't there? I think they will include Mike Brown and Nickerson to deal with the rough stuff. Those two can handle any Canadian player one on one.

Oh yes. Kessel I am sure will get driven into the endboards so hard when they play team Canada.
Should be fun for us to intimidate the poor lad.

Oh yes. Kessel I am sure will get driven into the endboards so hard when they play team Canada.
Should be fun for us to intimidate the poor lad.


The US should have a suprisingly strong team. A lot of them have played together before, so the chemistry should be easier to find and such.

It's going to be a close one this year!

Oh yes. Kessel I am sure will get driven into the endboards so hard when they play team Canada.
Should be fun for us to intimidate the poor lad.

Well, "wizard" if you don't think that intimidation plays a part in international competitions, I've got some really great stocks in the booming 8 track cassette industry that I'll let you in on the ground floor. ;)

Well, "wizard" if you don't think that intimidation plays a part in international competitions, I've got some really great stocks in the booming 8 track cassette industry that I'll let you in on the ground floor. ;)
What are you talking about. I think intimidation does play a factor. Perhaps you should reread my post.

Disagree on Nickerson. There is a huge difference in overall team size between the U.S. and Canadian teams, and i think that the U.S. coaches would want Nickerson there as an equalizer. You know that the Canadians are going to be running guys like Hensick and Kessel every chance they get. Who is going to hold Phaneuf, Belle, Seabrooke, Stewert, Getzlaf etc., accountable if Nickerson isn't there? I think they will include Mike Brown and Nickerson to deal with the rough stuff. Those two can handle any Canadian player one on one.

The Americans will be in tough against the Canadians in North Dakota, espcially on the North American ice surface. Unless the arena in North Dakota has Euro size ice, and even then it could be trouble for the USA. If there is a lockout, guys like Horton, Stewart, Belle, Phaneuf, Seabrooke, Burns, Coburn and possibly guys like Weber, Fraser, Chipchura, Fistric, Ladd, Crombeen, etc. will manhandle the Americans along the boards and in front of the net. If there is no lockout, things will be much easier on the Americans.

Ok, now you are saying a 6'11 basketball player or a 350lb defensive tackle or even a placekicker could've played hockey and if they had of, they would be better than an O'Sullivan, Schremp, Fritsche, Suter, Kessel, etc.????

If that's what I was saying, don't you think I would've flat-out said it? Maybe not necessarily a 6'11'' basketball player or a 350 lbs defensive tackle, but guys like Jeremy Shockey, Michael Vick, etc.

Most kids growing up in the U.S. are attracted to playing baseball, basketball, or football. Not hockey. Thus, most of the athletic kids will be playing those three sports, not hockey. It's really simple logic.

What if a Thelen, O'Sullivan or a Suter had of played baseball, football or basketball, are you saying they wouldn't have excelled??? Are they inferior to all other athletes in other sports??

What did I say that was even remotely close to suggesting something like that? What part of the word "most" do you not understand?

Who's a better athlete, Mario Lemieux or a Ken Griffey? How about a Mike Modano or a Peyton Manning??

All those players you mentioned are great atheletes. But you're missing the point ENTIRELY.

You better rethink that. You are saying the football or baseball athlete is better than the hockey athlete.

What is it about the word "most" that makes it so hard to understand? I know they teach the meaning of the word up in Canada.

The simple fact, and I'll say it again for those of you with difficulties in processing information, is that MOST of the kids in the U.S. play baseball, basketball, and football. Thus, by simple reasoning, you could infer that most of the athletic kids in the U.S. play those three sports, rather than hockey. Seeing as how hockey is by far the least popular of the three in the U.S., fewer (a smaller quantity) of the athletic kids end up playing it.

I agree a smaller share of the U.S. population goes out for hockey, but what makes you think that a 7'0 freak that plays basketball is better than the hockey athlete?

Again, when did I say that baseball, basketball, and football players are better athletes than hockey players?

Obvioulsly the U.S. would have a higher representation in the NHL if the whole country was playing hockey.

Postman, you make it sound like the best athletes are playing football and baseball, when this is not the case. The U.S. produces more good Football players, but the NHL players that they do produce are just as talented or more talented IMO

I believe the American kids playing in the NHL should take a backseat to no athlete.

Obvioulsly the U.S. would have a higher representation in the NHL if the whole country was playing hockey.

Postman, you make it sound like the best athletes are playing football and baseball, when this is not the case. The U.S. produces more good Football players, but the NHL players that they do produce are just as talented or more talented IMO

I believe the American kids playing in the NHL should take a backseat to no athlete.


I'll let you read my post to you earlier, seeing as how responding to this would just be redundant.

Exactly. Most of the country's top athletes are attracted to three sports, none of which are hockey.
Well, here is your post again.

What would make more sense is if you said that since most of our population is more interested in Baseball and Football, we produce on average less hockey players.

Would you like me to draw you a picture? I could run to the store and grab a box of crayons and draw you up a nice puuuuurdy picture.
Well I am not the only one that thought you used the wrong words to describe what you are trying to say.

It's hopeless with some people Postman. I understood your post the second I read it, because the alternate interpretation is laughable (not even considering hockey, interpreting that way would be saying that baseball players are better athletes than say, Lance Armstrong).

It's hopeless with some people Postman. I understood your post the second I read it, because the alternate interpretation is laughable (not even considering hockey, interpreting that way would be saying that baseball players are better athletes than say, Lance Armstrong).

Exactly.

Thank you.

Exactly.

Thank you.
You're welcome.
Let's get back to the topic of how Kessel is going to get drilled into the endboards vs. Team Canada.

Your welcome.
Let's get back to the topic of how Kessel is going to get drilled into the endboards vs. Team Canada.

Sometimes I truly wonder if you're serious, because no one can be this bad.

Postman, you're right. The States doesn't produce as many good hockey players because not as many people play hockey.

Very good analysis! :handclap:

If hockey was the #1 sport in america, they'd have the best nhl players.

If hockey was the #1 sport in america, they'd have the best nhl players.
They would definetely have more than they do now.
Canada has such a passion for the sport though, so it would be a toss up between the two.

The Americans will be in tough against the Canadians in North Dakota, espcially on the North American ice surface. Unless the arena in North Dakota has Euro size ice, and even then it could be trouble for the USA. If there is a lockout, guys like Horton, Stewart, Belle, Phaneuf, Seabrooke, Burns, Coburn and possibly guys like Weber, Fraser, Chipchura, Fistric, Ladd, Crombeen, etc. will manhandle the Americans along the boards and in front of the net. If there is no lockout, things will be much easier on the Americans.


You mean like last year? Size isn't everything.

They would definetely have more than they do now.
Canada has such a passion for the sport though, so it would be a toss up between the two.

Dude - I'm as Canadian as they come, but you are a bit out to lunch. If the US played hockey as much as they do the other three sports, they would absolutely crush us. Hell they're halfway decent with virtually noone playing it.

Dude - I'm as Canadian as they come, but you are a bit out to lunch. If the US played hockey as much as they do the other three sports, they would absolutely crush us. Hell they're halfway decent with virtually noone playing it.


Half-way decent? The U.S. was the only nation to win a medal at all four major IIHF sponsored events last year.

Dude - I'm as Canadian as they come, but you are a bit out to lunch. If the US played hockey as much as they do the other three sports, they would absolutely crush us. Hell they're halfway decent with virtually noone playing it.

But they don't... I don't care IF they do it... They HAVE to do it for me to believe they can crush Canada.

You mean like last year? Size isn't everything.
yeah....that's kind of what I was thinking. It's what everyone said last year, too. That didn't turn out so well for Canada now, did it....

and by the way did you guys see this study from ESPN? Sport Skills Difficulty ranking (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills)

yeah....that's kind of what I was thinking. It's what everyone said last year, too. That didn't turn out so well for Canada now, did it....

Maybe they where sooo big that Fleury though the puck was an ant?

But they don't... I don't care IF they do it... They HAVE to do it for me to believe they can crush Canada.

It isn't going to happen anytime soon. Hockey is growing in the U.S., for sure, but it's doing so very gradually. There seems to be more and more American talent lately in the drafts, but the U.S. is going to have to produce players consistently rather than in waves in order to be successful.

yeah....that's kind of what I was thinking. It's what everyone said last year, too. That didn't turn out so well for Canada now, did it....

and by the way did you guys see this study from ESPN? Sport Skills Difficulty ranking (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills)


Size (especially if coupled with speed and skill) is a great attribute, but it isn't the only harbinger of success. There are several defensemen in the NHL right now who are average to below average in size that get the job done just fine.

It isn't going to happen anytime soon. Hockey is growing in the U.S., for sure, but it's doing so very gradually. There seems to be more and more American talent lately in the drafts, but the U.S. is going to have to produce players consistently rather than in waves in order to be successful.

Well... It's getting better in America, but Canada will always be superior IMO, because of the passion that Canadians put into the game. Nothing against the U.S. because I think they have great passion too!

and by the way did you guys see this study from ESPN? Sport Skills Difficulty ranking (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills)

I agree with those rankings. Though I would have baseball higher.

Boxing is the only sport which I think is a lot harder than hockey, having done both.

I agree with those rankings. Though I would have baseball higher.

Boxing is the only sport which I think is a lot harder than hockey, having done both.


I was reading about the style of boxing engaged in in Ancient Greece, and let's just say it would make modern boxing look like a night at your local dinner theater.

Well... It's getting better in America, but Canada will always be superior IMO, because of the passion that Canadians put into the game. Nothing against the U.S. because I think they have great passion too!


Hockey will always be Canada's game, but I don't think it's safe to say Canada will always be the best internationally. Look at the U.S. in basketball and even baseball, other countries have caught up and on any given day can be the best.

I was reading about the style of boxing engaged in in Ancient Greece, and let's just say it would make modern boxing look like a night at your local dinner theater.

Yeah, modern day boxing isn't as brutal, for sure. It's much more about technique. But it's still quite hard on the body and extremely tiring.

Yeah, modern day boxing isn't as brutal, for sure. It's much more about technique. But it's still quite hard on the body and extremely tiring.


No doubt. You have to be a man's man to engage in boxing. It was just the ancient type was bare nuckle, except for when they put metal studs on their hands and beat each other senseless!

Canada may indeed have the best team on paper but as so many of us have said for so long, the game isn't played on paper.

The U.S. has a very good chance of repeating their Gold medal performance and I would be disappointed and down right shocked if they did not at least finish with the bronze.

I am not trying to be a "homer" but the U.S. has an asset that has thus far escaped Canada. The U.S. can come together as a TEAM far easier and quicker than Canada could ever hope to. The vast majority of the players on the U.S. squad will know one another on a unique basis that can only come from the bonds created by playing for a team.

Canada is a better collection of individual talent but individuals will never beat a team.

It will probably depend on Sidney Crosby. He is at the point that he can take over a tournament and dominate it. On the other hand, Phil Kessel probably isn't far behind in that respect. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Nickerson out there keeping a watchful eye on young Phil.

No doubt. You have to be a man's man to engage in boxing. It was just the ancient type was bare nuckle, except for when they put metal studs on their hands and beat each other senseless!

Ouch. The way boxers are trained today, they could kill you with their bare knuckles. Let alone with metal studs.

Size (especially if coupled with speed and skill) is a great attribute, but it isn't the only harbinger of success. There are several defensemen in the NHL right now who are average to below average in size that get the job done just fine.
dude, i was agreeing with you.

dude, i was agreeing with you.

I know. I was just re-emphasizing your point. :handclap:

Dude - I'm as Canadian as they come, but you are a bit out to lunch. If the US played hockey as much as they do the other three sports, they would absolutely crush us. Hell they're halfway decent with virtually noone playing it.
There are way more Americans playing hockey than you think. To say they would crush us is rediculous. Already they have the second most amount of rinks in the world.

I agree that Boxing is the toughest sport followed by hockey. Hockey is the toughest team sport.

It will probably depend on Sidney Crosby. He is at the point that he can take over a tournament and dominate it. On the other hand, Phil Kessel probably isn't far behind in that respect. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Nickerson out there keeping a watchful eye on young Phil.
Who is this Nickerson? No matter.
Canadian players play with no fear. I am pretty sure they will be taking runs at Kessel whether this Nickerson is out there or not.

My two cents on Nickerson making the team....

I agree with funkymoses on why Matt likely won't make the team. Also, I'll add that while he's an intimidating presence out there, Matt's also got to learn to keep his temper under control. I can't even begin to tell you all how many times this past season he got penalized for "popping his cork" and letting his emotions get the best of him.

Nickerson is the only player available who can go out on the ice without embarrassing the team and be an intimidating presence at the same time. I could see Jack Johnson playing ahead of Jeff Likens because he is much more of a physical presence and at least as talented, but Nickerson will be there unless he breaks a leg. A defense with Nickerson, Johnson, Thelen, Suter, Lewis and Hunwick should be able to handle the big Canadian forwards reasonably. All of them are over 200 pounds with the possible exception of Suter, and he plays pretty tough. Jeff Likesn and Jimmy Sharrow would just get steamrolled out there.

Canada may indeed have the best team on paper but as so many of us have said for so long, the game isn't played on paper.

The U.S. has a very good chance of repeating their Gold medal performance and I would be disappointed and down right shocked if they did not at least finish with the bronze.

I am not trying to be a "homer" but the U.S. has an asset that has thus far escaped Canada. The U.S. can come together as a TEAM far easier and quicker than Canada could ever hope to. The vast majority of the players on the U.S. squad will know one another on a unique basis that can only come from the bonds created by playing for a team.

Canada is a better collection of individual talent but individuals will never beat a team.

Ummmm....you talk like none of the Canadian players have never played with one another on the same team?? How about I explain something to you.....

Let's start with the 12 possible returning players from last year's WJC that played together for Team Canada. Of those 12, Seabrook, Belle, Coburn and Phaneuf have all played U17 and U18 together as many as 3 times. You can also include Mike Green, Patrick Coulombe and Alexandre Picard into that mix if any of them make the team, as they have all won U18 gold with the above four. Going further, if Schultz and Rogers make the team, they are obviously very familiar with each other as they play together in the WHL with the Calgary Hitmen. As well, Cam Barker and Mark Fistric have played with Rogers and O'Neill at the U18 Jr. World Cup.

Now as far as the forwards go....Anthony Stewart, Nigel Dawes, Mike Richards, Ryan Getzlaf, Stephen Dixon, Sidney Crosby, Jeremy Colliton, Brent Burns and Jeff Carter all played together last year at the WJC. Ok, now let's take this a little further....Stewart, Dawes, Richards, Getzlaf, Carter, Dixon and Colliton have all won U18 gold together at one time and for some of them twice. Now if guys like Steve Bernier and Marc-Antoine Pouliot(who both have 2 U18 gold medals to their credit), Corey Perry, Dany Roussin, BJ Crombeen, Stefan Meyer, Colin Fraser and last but not least, Nathan Horton make Team Canada, they have all won U18 together at one time or another. Throw in guys like Eric Fehr, Ryan Stone and Nathan Saunders who went to camp for the U18, but didn't make the final 8 Nations roster of Canada, but obviously are familiar with alot of the players who made that team. Now many these players also played in the U17 tourney together against top international competition. I believe Team Pacific which included Seabrook, Belle, Meyer and co. lost the gold medal game to the USA in that particular U17 tourney(2002 I believe??). Going even a little further....other guys who have a chance to make Team Canada at the 2005 WJC, like Kyle Chipchura, Wojtek Wolski and several of the 1986 born D-men have all played on the U18 team with Sidney Crosby. From there, they have all played with or against each other at the Canada Winter Games in 2003.

As far as the goalies go, well.....Devan Dubnyk has played with all of the 1986 born players that have a chance to make the 2005 WJC team and Sidney Crosby at the Jr. World Cup last summer. Ryan Munce and Rejean Beauchemin won gold with Seabrook, Belle, Pouliot, Getzlaf, etc. at the U18 Worlds in 2003. Munce was named Top Goaltender at that tourney.

OK, now obviously I agree with your statement that Canada has the better collection of individual talent than the USA, that is so obvious, but now can you explain to me where the USA has the advantage of, 'coming together as a TEAM far easier than Canada could ever hope to' or how the Americans know each other on such a 'unique' basis and have specials 'bonds' from playing together on a team????

What will Canada do throwing all of these strangers to together come December?? Is Canadian Hockey at a disadvantage?

Ummmm....you talk like none of the Canadian players have never played with one another on the same team?? How about I explain something to you.....

Let's start with the 12 possible returning players from last year's WJC that played together for Team Canada. Of those 12, Seabrook, Belle, Coburn and Phaneuf have all played U17 and U18 together as many as 3 times. You can also include Mike Green, Patrick Coulombe and Alexandre Picard into that mix if any of them make the team, as they have all won U18 gold with the above four. Going further, if Schultz and Rogers make the team, they are obviously very familiar with each other as they play together in the WHL with the Calgary Hitmen. As well, Cam Barker and Mark Fistric have played with Rogers and O'Neill at the U18 Jr. World Cup.

Now as far as the forwards go....Anthony Stewart, Nigel Dawes, Mike Richards, Ryan Getzlaf, Stephen Dixon, Sidney Crosby, Jeremy Colliton, Brent Burns and Jeff Carter all played together last year at the WJC. Ok, now let's take this a little further....Stewart, Dawes, Richards, Getzlaf, Carter, Dixon and Colliton have all won U18 gold together at one time and for some of them twice. Now if guys like Steve Bernier and Marc-Antoine Pouliot(who both have 2 U18 gold medals to their credit), Corey Perry, Dany Roussin, BJ Crombeen, Stefan Meyer, Colin Fraser and last but not least, Nathan Horton make Team Canada, they have all won U18 together at one time or another. Throw in guys like Eric Fehr, Ryan Stone and Nathan Saunders who went to camp for the U18, but didn't make the final 8 Nations roster of Canada, but obviously are familiar with alot of the players who made that team. Now many these players also played in the U17 tourney together against top international competition. I believe Team Pacific which included Seabrook, Belle, Meyer and co. lost the gold medal game to the USA in that particular U17 tourney(2002 I believe??). Going even a little further....other guys who have a chance to make Team Canada at the 2005 WJC, like Kyle Chipchura, Wojtek Wolski and several of the 1986 born D-men have all played on the U18 team with Sidney Crosby. From there, they have all played with or against each other at the Canada Winter Games in 2003.

As far as the goalies go, well.....Devan Dubnyk has played with all of the 1986 born players that have a chance to make the 2005 WJC team and Sidney Crosby at the Jr. World Cup last summer. Ryan Munce and Rejean Beauchemin won gold with Seabrook, Belle, Pouliot, Getzlaf, etc. at the U18 Worlds in 2003. Munce was named Top Goaltender at that tourney.

OK, now obviously I agree with your statement that Canada has the better collection of individual talent than the USA, that is so obvious, but now can you explain to me where the USA has the advantage of, 'coming together as a TEAM far easier than Canada could ever hope to' or how the Americans know each other on such a 'unique' basis and have specials 'bonds' from playing together on a team????

What will Canada do throwing all of these strangers to together come December?? Is Canadian Hockey at a disadvantage?


The simple answer is many of the U.S. players have played together on USNTDP teams prior to playing in college or juniors.

Canada may indeed have the best team on paper but as so many of us have said for so long, the game isn't played on paper.

The U.S. has a very good chance of repeating their Gold medal performance and I would be disappointed and down right shocked if they did not at least finish with the bronze.

I am not trying to be a "homer" but the U.S. has an asset that has thus far escaped Canada. The U.S. can come together as a TEAM far easier and quicker than Canada could ever hope to. The vast majority of the players on the U.S. squad will know one another on a unique basis that can only come from the bonds created by playing for a team.

Canada is a better collection of individual talent but individuals will never beat a team.


Are you serious? Iam not bias in the least, but the USA is does not have a strong squad going into this tournment. Their old and the next generation of USA hockey stars couldn't come sooner.

Uuuuhhh....we're talking about junior hockey here, ktown. World Cup is three doors down to the left..... :shakehead

Uuuuhhh....we're talking about junior hockey here, ktown. World Cup is three doors down to the left..... :shakehead

Yeah I'am aware of that... but it says this in this thread... so i replied to it? take it easy

Exactly. Most of the country's top athletes are attracted to three sports, none of which are hockey.

Since when does height make you a good athlete?

Since when does height make you a good athlete?

It doesn't, but most of US's top athletes in other sports are usually bigger than average (5'11''), which is around what a lot of America's top hockey prospects are (Parise, O'Sullivan, Schremp, Eaves, Higgins... to name a few).

Yeah I'am aware of that... but it says this in this thread... so i replied to it? take it easy

I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that the players on this year's U.S. WJC team could be "getting too old'? :help:

Are you serious? Iam not bias in the least, but the USA is does not have a strong squad going into this tournment. Their old and the next generation of USA hockey stars couldn't come sooner.


Define old. Early to mid-thirties? If so, we're all doomed.

Fistric is American no? Any chance of him and Nickerson teaming up to form some kind of bruise pairing? A slow one, but fearsome and intimidating one nonetheless..

Fistric is American no? Any chance of him and Nickerson teaming up to form some kind of bruise pairing? A slow one, but fearsome and intimidating one nonetheless..

Ouch!

Fistric is American no? Any chance of him and Nickerson teaming up to form some kind of bruise pairing? A slow one, but fearsome and intimidating one nonetheless..

Fristic is not American.

The U.S. team doesn't need to dress guys like Nickerson just because they're big and mean. Canada's physical play is always overhyped before a US-Canada meeting, but it isn't always as much of a factor as its played up to be (last year the U.S. physically dominated early on, for example).

The U.S. needs to ice their best team possible, regardless. If Nickerson is one of the better players available, then he should make it based on that. Not just based on the fact that he's big and mean.

It doesn't, but most of US's top athletes in other sports are usually bigger than average (5'11''), which is around what a lot of America's top hockey prospects are (Parise, O'Sullivan, Schremp, Eaves, Higgins... to name a few).

Height is a necessity in sports like Basketball and Football, not really in hockey.

Height is a necessity in sports like Basketball and Football, not really in hockey.

Basketball yes.

In football, it's over-analyzed like it is in hockey.

Listen, he's not saying that Mike Modano, or Brian Leetch aren't amazing atheletes. What he's saying that is the majority of kids growing up with any athletic ability don't even come close to attempting to play hockey. USA hockey gets a select few, in the hockey hotbeds, but it's not even remotely close to the amount of kids blessed with athletic ability that are playing football, or baseball, or basketball, and so on.

Basketball yes.

In football, it's over-analyzed like it is in hockey.

Listen, he's not saying that Mike Modano, or Brian Leetch aren't amazing atheletes. What he's saying that is the majority of kids growing up with any athletic ability don't even come close to attempting to play hockey. USA hockey gets a select few, in the hockey hotbeds, but it's not even remotely close to the amount of kids blessed with athletic ability that are playing football, or baseball, or basketball, and so on.

Exactly.

Height is a necessity in sports like Basketball and Football, not really in hockey.
See Postman, I told you no one knows what the hell you are talking about.

See Postman, I told you no one knows what the hell you are talking about.

Read my post above there adolescent.

Read my post above there adolescent.
I already read it. You make about as much sense as Postman.

The only adolescent is the one that resorts to name calling.

Everyone knows not as many kids in the U.S. play hockey. Are you guys coming up with something original here?

You people keep on trying to imply that the kids with any talent gravitate towards some other sport.

That is why a lot of people have a problem with it. Understand?

I already read it. You make about as much sense as Postman.

The only adolescent is the one that resorts to name calling.

Everyone knows not as many kids in the U.S. play hockey. Are you guys coming up with something original here?

You people keep on trying to imply that the kids with any talent gravitate towards some other sport.

That is why a lot of people have a problem with it. Understand?

Step 1: Slap yourself.
Step 2: Grab a dictionary.
Step 3: Don't interpret logical information illogically to fit your case.
Step 4: The fourth line of your little rant is correct.

Step 1: Slap yourself.
Step 2: Grab a dictionary.
Step 3: Don't interpret logical information illogically to fit your case.
Step 4: The fourth line of your little rant is correct.
:lol "the kids with any talent gravitate towards some other sport" that is what I said.
Postman in a previous post just said this is not what he was trying to imply, so which is it?

You guys aren't even on the same wavelength.

If you do believe this, you have no clue.

:lol "the kids with any talent gravitate towards some other sport" that is what I said.
Postman in a previous post just said this is not what he was trying to imply, so which is it?

You guys aren't even on the same wavelength.

If you do believe this, you have no clue.


One question: What sports do the majority of kids with athletic talent in the United States gravitate to? I can tell you right now it's not hockey.

:lol "the kids with any talent gravitate towards some other sport" that is what I said.
Postman in a previous post just said this is not what he was trying to imply, so which is it?

You guys aren't even on the same wavelength.

If you do believe this, you have no clue.

Yes that's what you said, and I agree. First, no where did you imply it was kids with hockey talent, just talent in general, and when you mentioned sports, that implies that it's athletic ability you're equating talent with. Therefore, you're saying that the kids with any athletic ability gravitate towards some other sport, which is correct. Thanks for stopping by though.

One question: What sports do kids with athletic talent in the United States gravitate to?
I am saying they don't gravitate towards any particular sport. Hockey gets just as good of athletes as any other sport.

:lol "the kids with any talent gravitate towards some other sport" that is what I said.
Postman in a previous post just said this is not what he was trying to imply, so which is it?

You guys aren't even on the same wavelength.

If you do believe this, you have no clue.

I'll give it to you one more time, with hopes that if we hit you in the head with it long enough, it just might get through.

MOST American kids growing up, play either baseball, basketball, or football. Thus, MOST of the bigger, talented, more athletic kids play those three sports. However, there is a minority of talented, athletic kids in the U.S. who play hockey. But just because there are FEWER kids who play hockey rather than baseball, basketball, and football, does NOT mean that they are less talented. Just that there are less of them.

It seems so basic and easy to understand, but you manage to turn this into a multi-page debacle due to your own lack of comprehension.

If you still can't grasp it, tough luck. I'm done wasting time on this.

I am saying they don't gravitate towards any particular sport. Hockey gets just as good of athletes as any other sport.

That is not true in the United States. The best athletes are not playing hockey. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to understand.

That is not true in the United States. The best athletes are not playing hockey. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to understand.
Oh really, what are the best athletes playing?

I'll give it to you one more time, with hopes that if we hit you in the head with it long enough, it just might get through.

MOST American kids growing up, play either baseball, basketball, or football. Thus, MOST of the bigger, talented, more athletic kids play those three sports. However, there is a minority of talented, athletic kids in the U.S. who play hockey. But just because there are FEWER kids who play hockey rather than baseball, basketball, and football, does NOT mean that they are less talented. Just that there are less of them.

It seems so basic and easy to understand, but you manage to turn this into a multi-page debacle due to your own lack of comprehension.

If you still can't grasp it, tough luck. I'm done wasting time on this.
Hey Postman, I see you edited out your post when you were caught going against your buddy Mobey. :lol

Hey Postman, I see you edited out your post when you were caught going against your buddy Mobey. :lol

I deleted my post altogether because I'm done. I agree with what Mobey said.

You're just grasping for your last few breaths at this point.

Oh really, what are the best athletes playing?


Cycling, Ironman, and Kendo.

Oh really, what are the best athletes playing?

The majority of the best athletes are playing football, baseball, and basketball. One two three, it's easy as one two three.

The majority of the best athletes are playing football, baseball, and basketball. One two three, it's easy as one two three.
I don't consider a 350 pound offensive lineman, or a 7 foot centre much of an athlete.
You guys still don't even know what you are saying.
Perhaps you should send some Private Messages with each other to get your story straight.

I don't consider a 350 pound offensive lineman, or a 7 foot centre much of an athlete.
You guys still don't even know what you are saying.
Perhaps you should send some Private Messages with each other to get your story straight.


You don't consider Shaq an athlete? Or a lineman that can run like a safety?

You don't consider Shaq an athlete? Or a lineman that can run like a safety?
So I was right. You guys are saying the Basketball, Football, and Baseball athlete is superior to that of Hockey.

I don't consider a 350 pound offensive lineman, or a 7 foot centre much of an athlete.
You guys still don't even know what you are saying.
Perhaps you should send some Private Messages with each other to get your story straight.

You don't know much then. How many of the NFL players are 350 pound offensive lineman? Basketball players 7 foot centers? Don't want to touch baseball huh? Your jingoism is pathetic.

Did your daddy make you play goalie as a kid with no helmet?

So I was right. You guys are saying the Basketball, Football, and Baseball athlete is superior to that of Hockey.

No. How about you kick yourself in the nuts and we call it even?

You don't know much then. How many of the NFL players are 350 pound offensive lineman? Basketball players 7 foot centers? Don't want to touch baseball huh? Your jingoism is pathetic.

Did your daddy make you play goalie as a kid with no helmet?
I am glad you guys are finally starting to say what you actually mean.
That the basketball, football, baseball athlete is superior to that of hockey.

I won't end my post with the little put downs like you do. :shakehead

I am glad you guys are finally starting to say what you actually mean.
That the basketball, football, baseball athlete is superior to that of hockey.

I won't end my post with the little put downs like you do. :shakehead

No where did anyone say that. Why do you find it necessary to hijack every thread that doesn't involve your Michael Jackson-like obsession with Crosby? What, Ovechkin wasn't enough? Nor was any thread regarding Kessel? Or this thread?

You're a troll. The only thing you're contributing to the boards is a decline in quality posting.

The majority of the best athletes are playing football, baseball, and basketball. One two three, it's easy as one two three.
Well, here is one of many examples.
Back to name calling again, eh? I guess you can't help yourself.

Well, here is one of many examples.
Back to name calling again, eh? I guess you can't help yourself.


That's not an example. That says the majority, which doesn't mean 100 percent. 51 percent is a majority there pal. The implication being that hockey does get some of the best American talent based on athletic ability.

Name calling is overrated Stockwizard. Oh look, I did it again.

That's not an example. That says the majority, which doesn't mean 100 percent. 51 percent is a majority there pal. The implication being that hockey does get some of the best American talent based on athletic ability.

Name calling is overrated Stockwizard. Oh look, I did it again.
Perhaps you should take some time alone to sort out you're own thoughts.

I guess you still have no idea what you are trying to say.

That is not true in the United States. The best athletes are not playing hockey. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to understand.
Here is another example.

I don't consider a 350 pound offensive lineman, or a 7 foot centre much of an athlete.
You guys still don't even know what you are saying.
Perhaps you should send some Private Messages with each other to get your story straight.
Not everybody in football weigh 350lbs (but even some of them get good times on the 40). You are missing the point completely. Most American athletes aren't interested in hockey. Its just not that popular in the US. You can't tell me you wouldn't drool at the thought of having Mike Vick, Deon Sanders, Brain Urlacher or Ray Lewis on skates would you?

Nickerson is the only player available who can go out on the ice without embarrassing the team and be an intimidating presence at the same time. I could see Jack Johnson playing ahead of Jeff Likens because he is much more of a physical presence and at least as talented, but Nickerson will be there unless he breaks a leg. A defense with Nickerson, Johnson, Thelen, Suter, Lewis and Hunwick should be able to handle the big Canadian forwards reasonably. All of them are over 200 pounds with the possible exception of Suter, and he plays pretty tough. Jeff Likesn and Jimmy Sharrow would just get steamrolled out there.

db, just exactly how many Clarkson games did you see this past season? Matt had put his team in numerous shorthanded situations, some of which came at possibly THE worst time in the game because of bad, stupid penalties or simply not keeping his emotions in check. While I agree that Matt is a very good player who's an absolute terror out there, he's not good to Team USA if he can't stay out of the box and/or keep his emotions in check. There are FAR too many very good teams that play in the WJC (not just Canada) and Team USA simply can't afford to have a player who could be a liability.

One player that everyone seems to be forgetting about that will get some consideration is Dylan Reese. He was replaced by Matt Hunwick on the Team USA squad earlier this season due to injury. He had a great finish to this past season at Harvard and he's got the goods to vie for a spot on Team USA's roster. Also, should he and Grant Lewis make the squad maybe the two youngsters can be blueline partners, after all they're best friends and both played together w/the Pittsburgh Forge.

Not everybody in football weigh 350lbs (but even some of them get good times on the 40). You are missing the point completely. Most American athletes aren't interested in hockey. Its just not that popular in the US. You can't tell me you wouldn't drool at the thought of having Mike Vick, Deon Sanders, Brain Urlacher or Ray Lewis on skates would you?
Yes, not as many kids in the U.S. play hockey. I understand this part.

Perhaps some of you Americans think that since the 12% of the U.S. population that is Black, don't play hockey, therefore their best athletes don't play hockey.

Yes, not as many kids in the U.S. play hockey. I understand this part.
Well thats the only part they've been trying to get through to you.

Perhaps some of you Americans think that since the 12% of the U.S. population that is Black, don't play hockey, therefore their best athletes don't play hockey.
Well I don't think they meant that, but I also think its a factor.

No, they have been saying their best athletes play other sports, and I still disagree.

No doubt Blacks are great at running and jumping, but this doesn't necessarily equate to being faster skaters. Same way it doesn't equate to being better swimmers.

No, they have been saying their best athletes play other sports, and I still disagree.
I wouldn't say that our BEST athletes play in other sports, but if the USA was as dedicated to hockey as it was to baseball or basketball or football, thats a lot of talent coming from the US that we didn't have before.

No doubt Blacks are great at running and jumping, but this doesn't necessarily equate to being faster skaters. Same way it doesn't equate to being better swimmers.
This is a racist comment, and you completely missed the point.

This is a racist comment, and you completely missed the point.
What is racist about it?
I am racist because I say Blacks are better at running and jumping?

Nice Label.

Skating and running are totally different. Just because someone is a good runner, does not necessarily mean they will be a great skater.

I will agree with that part you put in bold.

Could you arrange your quotes differently. The way you do it makes it look like it is something I said.

No, they have been saying their best athletes play other sports, and I still disagree.

No doubt Blacks are great at running and jumping, but this doesn't necessarily equate to being faster skaters. Same way it doesn't equate to being better swimmers.

Thanks stockwizard! We are very lucky to enjoy your expert analysis here at hfboards!


Slowly but surely you're helping us all come around to see the light!

S L

okay kiddies...


knock it off with the allegations, counter allegations, and putting words in each other's mouths.

next time me or a Mod have to step in , there will be thread closure , warnings , and bans...

Why Is A World Junior Related Topic Moved To The World Cup Of Hockey Board???????? Its About Prospects!

Basketball yes.

In football, it's over-analyzed like it is in hockey.

Listen, he's not saying that Mike Modano, or Brian Leetch aren't amazing atheletes. What he's saying that is the majority of kids growing up with any athletic ability don't even come close to attempting to play hockey. USA hockey gets a select few, in the hockey hotbeds, but it's not even remotely close to the amount of kids blessed with athletic ability that are playing football, or baseball, or basketball, and so on.

Only black people play basketball and football, so how would that translate into better hockey players? Unless you believe that black people are superior to whites in athletics. You may like to put yourself and your race down but don't spread your ignorance on a hockey message board, bud.

Only black people play basketball and football, so how would that translate into better hockey players? Unless you believe that black people are superior to whites in athletics. You may like to put yourself and your race down but don't spread your ignorance on a hockey message board, bud.
I agree with you. That is what they were trying to imply. What a joke!

All right first of all let me tell you guys that i am a Canadian Black man. Yes i can skate and damn well if you ask me. Its just a question of choices. Not a lot of black people choose to play hockey, thy prefer to play Football or Basketball cuz they say that " thats what we do". It pains me to hear this cuz we could make some fine hockey players.

Secondly i want to talk about the debate about the U.S. ending up being better at Hockey than Canadians. It could happen. The U.S. can be as good as anyone in any sport cuz they have the money. They have the money to buy better facilities and better coaches. And that's one of the greatest thing about this country. If you have the talent they'll help you take it to the next level no matter the cost. The olympics is the best exemple. But the U.S. being better than in Hockey is not likely to happen soon like seing the U.S. beat Brazil in soccer. It could happen, but not anytime soon. Hockey is Canada's sport. Imagine, in Montreal where i live, we beat Boston there was a huge party downtown like we had won the Stanley cup and it was just the first round. I dont think you ill ever see that in the U.S. That is how passionate we are about our game. Its like during the EURO 2004 in Portugal when the host country lost, a friend of mine who was there told me that she saw 4 year olds cry and it was like a major disaster had occured. Now thats passion.

U.S. can beat us once in a while like they did last year in the WJC and like Greece won the Euro but it wont happen every year. But whats incredible is how they get btter every year, and like i said they have the money to get there.

There are way more Americans playing hockey than you think. To say they would crush us is rediculous. Already they have the second most amount of rinks in the world.

Sure - and if they decided to play hockey as much as they played baseball or football, they'd have 5 or 10 times the number of rinks that we have that produce that many more players than us. The US produces some great athletes... and they have literally millions of athletic kids that are presently playing the other three sports. If you turned those kids over too hockey, without a doubt, I think that you'd have the dominant team in the world.

Sure - and if they decided to play hockey as much as they played baseball or football, they'd have 5 or 10 times the number of rinks that we have that produce that many more players than us. The US produces some great athletes... and they have literally millions of athletic kids that are presently playing the other three sports. If you turned those kids over too hockey, without a doubt, I think that you'd have the dominant team in the world.

Obviously the States is 10 times larger than Canada therefore if they worshipped hockey they would be a powerful hockey country. Perhaps the top in the world.

With Canadian passion for the game however, it would be impossible to "crush" Canada at hockey no matter what.

Obviously the States is 10 times larger than Canada therefore if they worshipped hockey they would be a powerful hockey country. Perhaps the top in the world.

With Canadian passion for the game however, it would be impossible to "crush" Canada at hockey no matter what.

All right... I'll make two points, and then call it a day.

1)When Americans play sports they are generally pationate about them. Look at the members of team USA this year, and tell me that they're not warriors too. JR and Hatcher and Chelios and Tkachuk and Amonte are just as passionate about hockey as any Canadian players. And when I look at the average QB or running back, or whatever in the NFL... those guys are warriors too.

2)I know Canadians are pationate... but size is just too much. Newfoundland is very pationate about hockey, and there are half a million people in the province. This is close to the team that they field if they ever made a provincial team

Dan Cleary - Jason King - Michael Ryder
Darren Langdon - Harold Druken - Terry Ryan
Tony White - Andy Sullivan - Alex Faulkner
Chad Penney - Dwayne Norris - Jason Morgan

John Slaney - Keith Brown
Brad Brown - Dave Pichette
Bob Gladney - Joe Lundrigan

Doug Grant - Mark Fitzpatrick

It's fine, but look at the team with about six times NFLD's size in BC.

Kariya-Sakic-Recchi
Ronning-Yzerman-McCarty
Deadmarsh-Morrison-Niedermayer
Horcoff-Scatchard-Stevenson

Brewer-Niedermayer
Hannan-Jackman
Hamhuis-Montador

Osgood

Now tell me that the newfies wouldn't get crushed... it's not because they lack passion or anything... they just don't have the numbers.

All right... I'll make two points, and then call it a day.

1)When Americans play sports they are generally pationate about them. Look at the members of team USA this year, and tell me that they're not warriors too. JR and Hatcher and Chelios and Tkachuk and Amonte are just as passionate about hockey as any Canadian players. And when I look at the average QB or running back, or whatever in the NFL... those guys are warriors too.

2)I know Canadians are pationate... but size is just too much. Newfoundland is very pationate about hockey, and there are half a million people in the province. This is close to the team that they field if they ever made a provincial team

Dan Cleary - Jason King - Michael Ryder
Darren Langdon - Harold Druken - Terry Ryan
Tony White - Andy Sullivan - Alex Faulkner
Chad Penney - Dwayne Norris - Jason Morgan

John Slaney - Keith Brown
Brad Brown - Dave Pichette
Bob Gladney - Joe Lundrigan

Doug Grant - Mark Fitzpatrick

It's fine, but look at the team with about six times NFLD's size in BC.

Kariya-Sakic-Recchi
Ronning-Yzerman-McCarty
Deadmarsh-Morrison-Niedermayer
Horcoff-Scatchard-Stevenson

Brewer-Niedermayer
Hannan-Jackman
Hamhuis-Montador

Osgood

Now tell me that the newfies wouldn't get crushed... it's not because they lack passion or anything... they just don't have the numbers.
Well laid out argument.

Canada does have 30 million people to draw from though. Look at Russia, they have 150 million and a love for the game. We still routinely beat them. I understand they don't have the resources as the U.S., but still.

Just because you're population is 10 times larger, doesn't mean you will produce 10 times as many hockey players.

I agree Americans are passionate about sports, and yes if they devoted all of there resources to hockey they probably would be the best in the world.

I still say however, no matter what, no country could ever "crush" team Canada at hockey.

I still say however, no matter what, no country could ever "crush" team Canada at hockey.

Heh - that's OK, we'll agree to disagree.

The Russia example is a good one, although I wonder what percentage of Russian youths play hockey as opposed to soccer, tennis, chess, or vodka-ing...

What are we talking about anyway? Americans already have good athletes playing hockey, we just don't have the depth that some other countries do. I would like to see these 'other athletes' play better than Modano, Leetch, Amonte, Roenick, etc. Team USA's talent is up there with the best in the world, depth-wise we are lacking.

What are we talking about anyway? Americans already have good athletes playing hockey, we just don't have the depth that some other countries do. I would like to see these 'other athletes' play better than Modano, Leetch, Amonte, Roenick, etc. Team USA's talent is up there with the best in the world, depth-wise we are lacking.
This is true. If you look at say the top 4 or 5 hockey Counties which include the U.S., they all have really good top end talent.

It is just really depth where Canada is superior.

Also, look at Czech Republic. They can sometimes beat team Canada, and they have how many people?

If the States put Hockey first, they would mostly improve their depth, but Canada would still have the top end talent to stay competitive with them.

What are we talking about anyway? Americans already have good athletes playing hockey, we just don't have the depth that some other countries do. I would like to see these 'other athletes' play better than Modano, Leetch, Amonte, Roenick, etc. Team USA's talent is up there with the best in the world, depth-wise we are lacking.

You're missing the point. No one is saying that the likes of Modano, Leetch, Amonte, Roenick, etc aren't world class athletes. They're just saying the majority of Americans that are top notch athletes aren't even playing hockey, which can't be said for Canada.

Team USA will not win a 2nd Gold Medal in a row with the team you listed. For starters, Fritsche, Stafford and Suter could all be in the NHL next season with any luck. If there is an NHL season, it's almost for sure Fritsche will be with Columbus and more than likely will not be released for Team USA. Stafford is doubtful to make the show, but hey, you never know? Suter could surprise and make the NHL?

If any or all of those guys aren't there, Team USA becomes extremely vulnerable. They have holes everywhere, other than in goal, but I would hope Montoya to really be on his game next year, cuz then we'll all see what he's really made of. The Americans were lucky to win the Gold medal game last year and will get destroyed by Canada this time around with that lineup.

"The Americans were lucky to win the Gold medal game last year...."

Jesus, get over it. You sound like the Dems in the US who keep whining about how Bush stole the election. Didn't Canada have a two goal lead going into the third? Were the Flames lucky to beat the Oilers in '86 just because of the fluke goal? I do agree however that Canada has a much stronger roster this year compared to the Americans.

I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that the players on this year's U.S. WJC team could be "getting too old'? :help:

WORLD CUP TEAM

What are we talking about anyway? Americans already have good athletes playing hockey, we just don't have the depth that some other countries do. I would like to see these 'other athletes' play better than Modano, Leetch, Amonte, Roenick, etc. Team USA's talent is up there with the best in the world, depth-wise we are lacking.


Compared to who-Canada? The U.S. has the second most NHL players, registered hockey players, and rinks. Our depth is just fine. The top-end talent is lagging a bit right now, but that's getting ready to change.

Re: US catching up with Canada
The main reason why the US will probably never catch up with Canada as far as production of hockey talent is because of the developmental system in the United States. That is not to say that what is in place isn't working fine for the current players. The problem is that unless you live in a couple states, you're going to have to leave home at a young age to play against better competition.

Even in a city like St Louis where high school hockey is pretty big the talent level just isn't good enough to develop a player into a solid NHL prospect. So, while some of the most talented young St Louis atheletes may choose to play hockey, they don't have much of a chance at all of making it to the NHL.

There are dozens of big cities in the US just like St Louis.... cities whose talent pool remains completely untapped.

Until either a) high school hockey considerably improves or b) the US truly has something comparable to the CHL, the majority of great athletes will be going to other sports.

Re: Blacks playing hockey
I think jcpenny is somewhat right about blacks playing basketball and football because "thats what [they] do", but the unfortunate reality of it is that the cost of playing hockey is probably the main issue keeping hockey out of black communities. To play football, you need a ball. To play basketball, you need a ball and a court which can be found just about anywhere. To play hockey with a group, people have to have equipment, a place to play which at times can be difficult to find, and of course a puck. Hell, that's hard to pull off in any neighborhood.

That said, I agree that black athletes could make some damn fine hockey players. Shawn Belle really is the perfect example [as far as athleticism] of what there could be a lot more of.

USA WC Team "Too Old"
Only on this prospect oriented board where people greatly overrate young players is this an issue. This is a 16 day tournament we're talking about. Age will not be an issue here at all.

Of course blacks would be fine Hockey players.

I was just saying that an ability to run fast will not translate to the ice. Skating is totally different, therefore that advantage is nullified.

Ray Lewis was used as an example. No, he would probably not be a good hockey player. If it was so useful to be bulked up like that, then every hockey player would look like a linebacker. You would loose flexibility with your shot, and would be too slow with little endurance.

It probably is more of an Economic reason why more blacks don't play hockey. It can be very expensive on parents.

I was just saying that an ability to run fast will not translate to the ice. Skating is totally different, therefore that advantage is nullified.

You can't say that the advantage is nullified unless you have some proof that blacks wouldn't be able to skate faster.

Just because skating is not running that doesn't mean they wouldn't have the same advantage.

All right... I'll make two points, and then call it a day.

1)When Americans play sports they are generally pationate about them. Look at the members of team USA this year, and tell me that they're not warriors too. JR and Hatcher and Chelios and Tkachuk and Amonte are just as passionate about hockey as any Canadian players. And when I look at the average QB or running back, or whatever in the NFL... those guys are warriors too.

2)I know Canadians are pationate... but size is just too much. Newfoundland is very pationate about hockey, and there are half a million people in the province. This is close to the team that they field if they ever made a provincial team

Dan Cleary - Jason King - Michael Ryder
Darren Langdon - Harold Druken - Terry Ryan
Tony White - Andy Sullivan - Alex Faulkner
Chad Penney - Dwayne Norris - Jason Morgan

John Slaney - Keith Brown
Brad Brown - Dave Pichette
Bob Gladney - Joe Lundrigan

Doug Grant - Mark Fitzpatrick

It's fine, but look at the team with about six times NFLD's size in BC.

Kariya-Sakic-Recchi
Ronning-Yzerman-McCarty
Deadmarsh-Morrison-Niedermayer
Horcoff-Scatchard-Stevenson

Brewer-Niedermayer
Hannan-Jackman
Hamhuis-Montador

Osgood

Now tell me that the newfies wouldn't get crushed... it's not because they lack passion or anything... they just don't have the numbers.

Loved this post ..puts things into perspective...the U.S. is sports crazy...witness the fact that they give athletic scholarchips and Canadinas give only academic ones..(does that mean we Canadinas are smarter... :dunno: :joker: ) anyhow the states junoirs beat us..ahh well w'ell get 'em next year or the year after that either way one thing is always for sure Canada cares more about junior hockey and will always be in the medal running finally..... isn't Yzerman form Ottawa?

You can't say that the advantage is nullified unless you have some proof that blacks wouldn't be able to skate faster.

Just because skating is not running that doesn't mean they wouldn't have the same advantage.
I have to give proof that blacks wouldn't necessarily be able to skate faster. Get real.

Should I ask for proof that blacks can run faster, even though this is obviously the case.

I have to give proof that blacks wouldn't necessarily be able to skate faster. Get real.

Yes.

You're stating that you know blacks wouldn't have a skating advantage.

Prove it.

Until then black people may or may not have a skating advantage.

Well laid out argument.

Canada does have 30 million people to draw from though. Look at Russia, they have 150 million and a love for the game. We still routinely beat them. I understand they don't have the resources as the U.S., but still.


With this logic we can bring here China. 40 times bigger population than Canadian. But it is not only about population. It is about rinks, equipment, level of coaches... and as a result - beautiful hockey. With all of this popularity and passionate will come.

The Russia example is a good one, although I wonder what percentage of Russian youths play hockey as opposed to soccer, tennis, chess, or vodka-ing...

It is not "vodka-ing", it is "litreball" ;)

Russia develops almost every sport and doing pretty well at them. The place for hockey is not that big as someone may think. Small amount of rinks limits hockey development.. kids go to another sports:

The most popular team sports in Russia besides hockey are:
-soccer (a lot of kids play it but the level of competition is pretty average, I think amount of players more than in hockey),
-basketball (also a lot of kids play it, every big city has the team, Russia has a good youth, one of the best in Europe),
-volleyball (also very popular sport, Russia have one of the most talented youth in the world, also Russian Volleyball League probably the strongest in Europe alongside with the Italian League),
-handball (developed pretty good since Russia could build the team and win 3 of the last 4 Olympics),
-water polo (national team is very strong but looks like youth is not that good),
-bandy (very popular in few cities, national team is one of the strongest in the world),
-rugby (popular in few cities, level of competition is average).

Not team sports:
-swimming (popular, youth is top 1-2 in Europe but small number of pools slows down its developing),
-underwater swimming (beautiful sport, popular in several cities, especially in Siberia, youth is one of the best in the world),
wrestling, boxing, diving, fencing, shooting, acrobatics, gymnastics, weightlifting, canoe... - very well developed sports producing top end athlets, Olympic gold medalists.

Now I'll bring an example of my city Krasnoyarsk. Most popular and developed sports here are bandy (top 2 team in Russia), rugby(2 best teams in Russia), wrestling(few active Olympic champions), basketball (low level), soccer(low level), underwater swimming (good level), rock-climbing and many others (http://www.krassport.ru/?action=history). We have a hockey team (back after bankruptcy a year ago) that plays somewhere in 2rd League. Our 1 million city have just 1 indoor hockey rink. I can imaging if most resources would be dropped into hockey instead all those sports... though I wouldn't want it... but few more hockey rinks wouldn't hurt and I hope they will be built soon.

Should I ask for proof that blacks can run faster, even though this is obviously the case.

Is it? I think I could outrun Shaq or Warren Sapp. Does that mean that whites are faster than blacks?

There's a large variety of body types in Africans, and African Americans (believe it or not, there is a difference). I don't think you can make gross generalizations on skin color alone. Just because Kenyans win the Boston marathon every single year doesn't mean that a Pygmy could do the same thing.

S L

I think the point that Mobey\Rabid Ranger\et al. is trying to make, stockwizard...isn't that the kids in the US that play hockey aren't the best athletes..but rather, if hockey were as popular on the whole in the United States as it is Canada...this discussion would probably be completely irrelevant. It's nothing against Canada, but the sheer population\wealth of a country like the US would suggest that if hockey were one of the 'big three,' the US would likely be the best in the world. right now..the best hockey athletes in the US eventually make it to the NHL..through either the NCAA, the NDTP or even the CHL. these kids are drawn from the 5 or 6 hotbeds(various places in minnesota, massachusetts, new york, maine, connecticut and michigan), that is...the places with developed hockey programs. now...could you imagine what would happen...if that type of exposure was multiplied by ten? or even more..considering that even in the places where hockey is its' most popular in the united states...it still takes a backseat to the other sports. the results would be pretty astounding. there are millions of kids in the united states that go into football, baseball, basketball or even soccer...that have never and may never see a hockey game. is this to say that if they had made a different choice or lived somewhere else....they couldn't have been good hockey players? of course not. the football analogy applies..though maybe someone like ray lewis is a bad example. think instead...someone like emmitt smith or barry sanders. i guarantee you that with their level of athleticism...if they had strapped skates on at age 4...and started the long road toward pro hockey in the US or Canada...you'd probably looking at two solid NHL players. it's impossible to say for sure, of course...but I feel pretty confident in such an inferrence. I think the point that's being made isn't that the best athletes in the US don't play hockey...because I'm sure that some of the US's better players should be considered "up there." rather, i think the idea is that the US doesn't have the POOL of great athletes to draw from, solely because of the fact that hockey is considered by most in the US to be a second tier sport. when you consider that...in SPITE OF this...the US is still one of the top hockey nations in the world...having won the WJC this year and even giving Canada a pretty stiff match in the gold medal game of the Olympics...it's impossible not to think that if hockey had even twice as many youth participants as it does now...the result would be the strongest team in the world. what people like rabid ranger often say...is that hockey is slowly gaining popularity. i grew up in nashville and played hockey my entire life..and that was before the Preds even came to town. since that happened? the youth hockey program has exploded, and there's some good kids coming out of the system. no one NHL or even CHL caliber..but a few have gone on to play college hockey. as money increases and development\programs get better...it could only be a matter of time before the non-traditional markets start contributing\attracting more kids...and then what? time will tell.

Yes.

You're stating that you know blacks wouldn't have a skating advantage.

Prove it.

Until then black people may or may not have a skating advantage.
Why don't you prove that blacks would have a skating advantage over whites?

Whites might even have a skating advantage over blacks. Who knows.
Who cares.

There are enough blacks playing hockey, and no one has ever won the faster skater.

Obviously there has never been a scientic study as to which can skate faster, so there is no absolute proof. Just like there is no proof that whites can skate faster.

I think the point that Mobey\Rabid Ranger\et al. is trying to make, stockwizard...isn't that the kids in the US that play hockey aren't the best athletes..but rather, if hockey were as popular on the whole in the United States as it is Canada...this discussion would probably be completely irrelevant. It's nothing against Canada, but the sheer population\wealth of a country like the US would suggest that if hockey were one of the 'big three,' the US would likely be the best in the world. right now..the best hockey athletes in the US eventually make it to the NHL..through either the NCAA, the NDTP or even the CHL. these kids are drawn from the 5 or 6 hotbeds(various places in minnesota, massachusetts, new york, maine, connecticut and michigan), that is...the places with developed hockey programs. now...could you imagine what would happen...if that type of exposure was multiplied by ten? or even more..considering that even in the places where hockey is its' most popular in the united states...it still takes a backseat to the other sports. the results would be pretty astounding. there are millions of kids in the united states that go into football, baseball, basketball or even soccer...that have never and may never see a hockey game. is this to say that if they had made a different choice or lived somewhere else....they couldn't have been good hockey players? of course not. the football analogy applies..though maybe someone like ray lewis is a bad example. think instead...someone like emmitt smith or barry sanders. i guarantee you that with their level of athleticism...if they had strapped skates on at age 4...and started the long road toward pro hockey in the US or Canada...you'd probably looking at two solid NHL players. it's impossible to say for sure, of course...but I feel pretty confident in such an inferrence. I think the point that's being made isn't that the best athletes in the US don't play hockey...because I'm sure that some of the US's better players should be considered "up there." rather, i think the idea is that the US doesn't have the POOL of great athletes to draw from, solely because of the fact that hockey is considered by most in the US to be a second tier sport. when you consider that...in SPITE OF this...the US is still one of the top hockey nations in the world...having won the WJC this year and even giving Canada a pretty stiff match in the gold medal game of the Olympics...it's impossible not to think that if hockey had even twice as many youth participants as it does now...the result would be the strongest team in the world. what people like rabid ranger often say...is that hockey is slowly gaining popularity. i grew up in nashville and played hockey my entire life..and that was before the Preds even came to town. since that happened? the youth hockey program has exploded, and there's some good kids coming out of the system. no one NHL or even CHL caliber..but a few have gone on to play college hockey. as money increases and development\programs get better...it could only be a matter of time before the non-traditional markets start contributing\attracting more kids...and then what? time will tell.
I would agree with what you are saying.

This is not however what the others were saying, and I was not the only one confused by them. I have no idea however, what they meant to say because I am not a mind reader and all I have to go by is their written words.

I think the point that Mobey\Rabid Ranger\et al. is trying to make, stockwizard...isn't that the kids in the US that play hockey aren't the best athletes..but rather, if hockey were as popular on the whole in the United States as it is Canada...this discussion would probably be completely irrelevant. It's nothing against Canada, but the sheer population\wealth of a country like the US would suggest that if hockey were one of the 'big three,' the US would likely be the best in the world. right now..the best hockey athletes in the US eventually make it to the NHL..through either the NCAA, the NDTP or even the CHL. these kids are drawn from the 5 or 6 hotbeds(various places in minnesota, massachusetts, new york, maine, connecticut and michigan), that is...the places with developed hockey programs. now...could you imagine what would happen...if that type of exposure was multiplied by ten? or even more..considering that even in the places where hockey is its' most popular in the united states...it still takes a backseat to the other sports. the results would be pretty astounding. there are millions of kids in the united states that go into football, baseball, basketball or even soccer...that have never and may never see a hockey game. is this to say that if they had made a different choice or lived somewhere else....they couldn't have been good hockey players? of course not. the football analogy applies..though maybe someone like ray lewis is a bad example. think instead...someone like emmitt smith or barry sanders. i guarantee you that with their level of athleticism...if they had strapped skates on at age 4...and started the long road toward pro hockey in the US or Canada...you'd probably looking at two solid NHL players. it's impossible to say for sure, of course...but I feel pretty confident in such an inferrence. I think the point that's being made isn't that the best athletes in the US don't play hockey...because I'm sure that some of the US's better players should be considered "up there." rather, i think the idea is that the US doesn't have the POOL of great athletes to draw from, solely because of the fact that hockey is considered by most in the US to be a second tier sport. when you consider that...in SPITE OF this...the US is still one of the top hockey nations in the world...having won the WJC this year and even giving Canada a pretty stiff match in the gold medal game of the Olympics...it's impossible not to think that if hockey had even twice as many youth participants as it does now...the result would be the strongest team in the world. what people like rabid ranger often say...is that hockey is slowly gaining popularity. i grew up in nashville and played hockey my entire life..and that was before the Preds even came to town. since that happened? the youth hockey program has exploded, and there's some good kids coming out of the system. no one NHL or even CHL caliber..but a few have gone on to play college hockey. as money increases and development\programs get better...it could only be a matter of time before the non-traditional markets start contributing\attracting more kids...and then what? time will tell.

You talk about hockey only getting talent out of select hotbeds in the country. What about basketball and football? It can be argued that these kids are only coming out of a select number of inner-cities. Where are the suburbanites? Or I guess since most people in the suburbs are white they suck.

Why don't you prove that blacks would have a skating advantage over whites?

Perhaps because I never said that they did?

You're the one saying that they wouldn't/won't/don't. So...

Prove it.

Perhaps because I never said that they did?

You're the one saying that they wouldn't/won't/don't. So...

Prove it.
Let's get this straight. You want me to prove that blacks are no better at skating than whites.

Nice self loathing.

Obviously you can't give scientic proof.

I could say since in the Olympics the speed skater champions are all white, therefore we are better skaters. But I know this won't prove anything.

Skating and running are totally different and results speak for themselves.

I was friends with someone in high school and we both started skating at the same time.
He could kill me in a running sprint, and I was much faster than him on the ice.

No, what I really want you to do is admit that you have no clue whether or not black people would have an advantage in ice skating ability because there is no evidence to support your claim.

You talk about hockey only getting talent out of select hotbeds in the country. What about basketball and football? It can be argued that these kids are only coming out of a select number of inner-cities. Where are the suburbanites? Or I guess since most people in the suburbs are white they suck.


well, even if that argument weren't flawed...there's a lot more inner cities than there are "hockey hotbeds," but the idea that all the best football and basketball players come out of inner-cities is questionable and troublesome in itself. i mean, i realize that straight-gangsta eli manning may have come up on the mean streets of mississippi, but that's not the case for everyone ;)

No, what I really want you to do is admit that you have no clue whether or not black people would have an advantage in ice skating ability because there is no evidence to support your claim.

There's enough black players in the NHL to determine how they can stack up against the current talent. As far as skating goes, look at Mike Grier or Laraque. They aren't very quick on their feet. Certainly not on Modano's level or a Fedorov. There are also players like Daley and Iginla who are good skaters as compared to Dale Purinton.

There's enough black players in the NHL to determine how they can stack up against the current talent. As far as skating goes, look at Mike Grier or Laraque. They aren't very quick on their feet. Certainly not on Modano's level or a Fedorov. There are also players like Daley and Iginla who are good skaters as compared to Dale Purinton.

There are also players like Jamal Mayers whose speed before he tore his ACL and MCL was as good as any player in hockey. Then there's Shawn Belle who Jarmo Kelelainen called the best skater he has ever seen.

You talk about hockey only getting talent out of select hotbeds in the country. What about basketball and football? It can be argued that these kids are only coming out of a select number of inner-cities. Where are the suburbanites? Or I guess since most people in the suburbs are white they suck.Sure most basketball players come out of the inner cities,but far more football players come from the suburbs. As far as most people being white in the suburbs take a look around they're a lot more diverse now then 15 years ago.