The Population Myth (Outline)

[Iain Fyffe]

As we have seen to date there are numerous other considerations that always trump population based positions.

Trumps only come into play in either/or situations. But population is one factor among many; it can't be trumped because it will always be part of the equation.

 

[Stonefly]

Can you provide examples of anyone actually making this argument? It's only a myth worth debunking if it's actually put forward.

Read any of danincanada's posts in other threads?

Trumps only come into play in either/or situations. But population is one factor among many; it can't be trumped because it will always be part of the equation.

I can only assume from this comment that you haven't played a game with trump cards. Euchre for instance. Seems like an attempt at being argumentative really.
You believe that the different aspects involved in developing athletes are all equal? Or are some aspects more important?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Romanticized Versions

Read any of danincanada's posts in other threads?



I can only assume from this comment that you haven't played a game with trump cards. Euchre for instance. Seems like an attempt at being argumentative really.
You believe that the different aspects involved in developing athletes are all equal? Or are some aspects more important?

Quite correct. Many others do the same on this and other boards.People into lists are more than welcome to contribute one if they wish.

The population myth in its romanticized version has been around since the early days of hockey. The Kenora Thistles, Dawson City Nuggets/Klondikes SC Challenge in 1904 are nice underdog stories but hardly representative of how hockey was developing in small towns or remote areas in Canada.

Likewise the growth of hockey as portrayed in Montreal and Quebec City pre NHL era focuses on English/Irish pockets - two time SC Champion Quebec Bulldogs did not have any French players.

Population is simply background information.

 

[danincanada]

Read any of danincanada's posts in other threads?

I never stated that population grown is the only factor in producing better hockey players. It is one factor that must be considered though.

Calling it a myth is like denying it has any relavence at all. Canada doubled it's population since 1960 so assuming the talent pool of hockey players has also increased since then is only logical.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

I never stated that population grown is the only factor in producing better hockey players. It is one factor that must be considered though.

Calling it a myth is like denying it has any relavence at all. Canada doubled it's population since 1960 so assuming the talent pool of hockey players has also increased since then is only logical.

No. The 1920 USA population figures are below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_United_States_Census

Since 1920 the population of the USA has nearly tripled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

2010 figures provided.

Yet no baseball or boxing analysts are claiming that since 1920 the baseball or boxing talent pool in the USA has nearly tripled.

If the assumption is logical as you claim then it should be logical in regards to other sports, domains, etc.

 

[danincanada]

No. The 1920 USA population figures are below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_United_States_Census

Since 1920 the population of the USA has nearly tripled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

2010 figures provided.

Yet no baseball or boxing analysts are claiming that since 1920 the baseball or boxing talent pool in the USA has nearly tripled.

If the assumption is logical as you claim then it should be logical in regards to other sports, domains, etc.

I didn't say the number of hockey players in Canada also doubled with the population, I said it most likely increased as well. No one thinks it's an exact correlation or that the scale for population and registered hockey players would follow the exact same line. There are obviously other factors involved too.

My whole argument has been that there are more people playing hockey worldwide now than in the past and therefore the current talent pool should also be deeper.

 

[seventieslord]

If we can consider that a certain sport (like hockey) remains equally attractive and accessible to the people of a certain country (like Canada), then I would assume that a growth in the population of that country will lead to an proportionate increase in the number of active players. How talented these players are and how able they will be to transform their talent into elite top-league performances, will however remain uncertain, as it depends on too many other factors

Due to these – mainly theoretic – reasons I strongly assume that the performance level (maybe the talent level as well) of today’s NHL is much higher than during the Original 6 era. I consider the facts, that
- many smaller countries like Sweden. Finland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Switzerland (to a lesser degree) have been able to field hockey teams, which are on par with Canada or Russia,
- some talented players from European leagues can make an immediate impact in the NHL,
- many Non-Canadian players receive NHL awards
as confirmations of my theory.

Trumps only come into play in either/or situations. But population is one factor among many; it can't be trumped because it will always be part of the equation.

I never stated that population grown is the only factor in producing better hockey players. It is one factor that must be considered though.

Calling it a myth is like denying it has any relavence at all. Canada doubled it's population since 1960 so assuming the talent pool of hockey players has also increased since then is only logical.

I didn't say the number of hockey players in Canada also doubled with the population, I said it most likely increased as well. No one thinks it's an exact correlation or that the scale for population and registered hockey players would follow the exact same line. There are obviously other factors involved too.

My whole argument has been that there are more people playing hockey worldwide now than in the past and therefore the current talent pool should also be deeper.

Jeez, guys, quit making so much sense... tone it down a notch.

 

[Canadiens1958]

nO

I didn't say the number of hockey players in Canada also doubled with the population, I said it most likely increased as well. No one thinks it's an exact correlation or that the scale for population and registered hockey players would follow the exact same line. There are obviously other factors involved too.

My whole argument has been that there are more people playing hockey worldwide now than in the past and therefore the current talent pool should also be deeper.

No one claimed that you said it doubled just used a convenient example to illustrate how there is no correlation.

As for the bolded, there is a distinction between broader which seems to be your point and deeper, but broader is not to be interpreted as deeper. Worldwide is simply broader in scope but does not contribute to deeper talent by default.

 

[Stonefly]

I didn't say the number of hockey players in Canada also doubled with the population, I said it most likely increased as well. No one thinks it's an exact correlation or that the scale for population and registered hockey players would follow the exact same line. There are obviously other factors involved too.

My whole argument has been that there are more people playing hockey worldwide now than in the past and therefore the current talent pool should also be deeper.

There you go, you just said it again right there. Your "whole argument". Which is what you've stated in many other posts. More people = more talented hockey players in NHL. You didn't mention "other factors" until it was shown to you that there were "other factors".

 

[danincanada]

There you go, you just said it again right there. Your "whole argument". Which is what you've stated in many other posts. More people = more talented hockey players in NHL. You didn't mention "other factors" until it was shown to you that there were "other factors".

More people playing hockey = more people to pick from for the NHL (deeper talent pool)

I never stated it's an exact science. I just got tired of people pretending that the talent pool the NHL got to pick from hasn't changed since it's inception. With the increase in population and growth of the sport we now have more athletes. Do you not agree?

 

[Stonefly]

More people playing hockey = more people to pick from for the NHL (deeper talent pool)

I never stated it's an exact science. I just got tired of people pretending that the talent pool the NHL got to pick from hasn't changed since it's inception. With the increase in population and growth of the sport we now have more athletes. Do you not agree?

More athletes? Sure. Better? No not necessarily, and that is what you are saying.

 

[danincanada]

More athletes? Sure. Better? No not necessarily, and that is what you are saying.

There are far more people playing the sport and therefore, if all else is equal, the potential for a larger amount of "elite athletes" is also greater. You say not necessarily, and I agree, but let's be realistic here. These other factors that are mentioned in this thread have, for the most part, also increased with population. There are more rinks, coaches and money in the sport of hockey now to go along with the increased number of people playing hockey.

So the next question is, why wouldn't current NHLers be better than those in the past? Why would a smaller group of athletes with less resources be considered equal, and even better by some, than current NHLers? I don't see any logic in this so if I'm missing something I'd like to know what it is.

 

[Stonefly]

There are far more people playing the sport and therefore, if all else is equal, the potential for a larger amount of "elite athletes" is also greater. You say not necessarily, and I agree, but let's be realistic here. These other factors that are mentioned in this thread have, for the most part, also increased with population. There are more rinks, coaches and money in the sport of hockey now to go along with the increased number of people playing hockey.

So the next question is, why wouldn't current NHLers be better than those in the past? Why would a smaller group of athletes with less resources be considered equal, and even better by some, than current NHLers? I don't see any logic in this so if I'm missing something I'd like to know what it is.

Some things have been mentioned and there are still yet some that haven't been. The things that have been mentioned haven't been examined all that closely yet.

Here's something else to consider. In Canada where is the increase in population coming from? How much has immigration affected the population? I don't know these numbers, just something that needs to be looked at as well I would think. I'm a babyboomer and can tell you that the faces of the people I see these days look a lot different than the faces I saw in my youth. I'm pretty sure most of them have no interest in hockey.

 

[danincanada]

Some things have been mentioned and there are still yet some that haven't been. The things that have been mentioned haven't been examined all that closely yet.

Here's something else to consider. In Canada where is the increase in population coming from? How much has immigration affected the population? I don't know these numbers, just something that needs to be looked at as well I would think. I'm a babyboomer and can tell you that the faces of the people I see these days look a lot different than the faces I saw in my youth. I'm pretty sure most of them have no interest in hockey.

Posters on this board have had similar discussions in the past where they may have touched on other factors as well. This discussion hasn't gone very deep so far.

Immigration is something that must be considered but there are lots of immigrants and/or their children who do play hockey. PK Subban and Nazem Kadri are just two examples.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Realistic

There are far more people playing the sport and therefore, if all else is equal, the potential for a larger amount of "elite athletes" is also greater. You say not necessarily, and I agree, but let's be realistic here. These other factors that are mentioned in this thread have, for the most part, also increased with population. There are more rinks, coaches and money in the sport of hockey now to go along with the increased number of people playing hockey.

So the next question is, why wouldn't current NHLers be better than those in the past? Why would a smaller group of athletes with less resources be considered equal, and even better by some, than current NHLers? I don't see any logic in this so if I'm missing something I'd like to know what it is.

Going to explain this.

There are certain political and social realities at play.

Rinks and ice time. Focusing strictly on the province of Quebec. Approximately 95% of the arenas are under municipal control while most of the private arenas contra taxes against ice time for municipally supported hockey organizations. The ice time is allocated according to demand since votes are at play. So hockey players from all ages and skils 3 to 70+ play hockey during the time when ice is available. All this hockey costs money, requires coaching, etc but does nothing to improve the elite.At the single letter youth hockey level, various old-timer leagues the presence of a certified coach is required. But certification requires passing a written test.

On the other hand the coaching in the post WWII era for youngsters was better. Bobby Orr was coached by Bucko MacDonald a long time NHL player who could teach him the subtle inner game. In montreal, the region / district where I grew up had coaches in each organization with NHL and minor pro experience who could teach and coach the game at the practical level.Today in the same region / district there are zero coaches with an NHL or minor pro background

Furthermore at least 3/4 of the rinks remove the ice between May and September since the Arena Complex in the various municipalities is required for non-hockey activities supported by the voting public. These activities generate the revenues that help run the the arena year round - old style country fairs, fishing and hunting shows, you name it.


Before going further you will have to decide are you looking at better, deeper or broader? They are not interchangeable.

 

[plusandminus]

Here's something else to consider. In Canada where is the increase in population coming from? How much has immigration affected the population? I don't know these numbers, just something that needs to be looked at as well I would think. I'm a babyboomer and can tell you that the faces of the people I see these days look a lot different than the faces I saw in my youth. I'm pretty sure most of them have no interest in hockey.

Immigration is something I mentioned too, in this thread, yesterday.
For some reason(s), I often get the impression that what I write appears unnoticed and then repeated by others. Perhaps I need to practice more.

Hockey is also traditionally a "white" sport (not many blacks in NHL historically), while for example basketball seems to be a more "black" sport. It doesn't have to do with skin colour. The immigrants may just come from countries (white or black or whatever) with little hockey tradition.

I also mentioned another point about this. Economic situation. Hockey is a rather expensive sport. I have an impression that blacks in general were poorer economically than whites, which may also have affected things.

For more points I made, se yesterday.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Immigrants

Posters on this board have had similar discussions in the past where they may have touched on other factors as well. This discussion hasn't gone very deep so far.

Immigration is something that must be considered but there are lots of immigrants and/or their children who do play hockey. PK Subban and Nazem Kadri are just two examples.

Children of immigrants playing hockey goes back to early NHL - German - Schmidt, Bauer, Dumart, Italian - Jimmy Orlando, Countless Ukrainians/Russians who produced greater hockey players than the Soviets or Russians have - Dale Hawerchuk, John, Bucyk, Terry Sawchuk, Johnny Bower, Mike Bossy,. Wayne Gretzky is another example of immigration to Canada producing talented hockey players.

 

[plusandminus]

This discussion hasn't gone very deep so far.

Maybe that's at least partly because you and the thread starter mostly seem to ignore attemps at put a deeper analysis into the discussion.

 

[Stonefly]

Immigration is something I mentioned too, in this thread, yesterday.
For some reason(s), I often get the impression that what I write appears unnoticed and then repeated by others. Perhaps I need to practice more.

Hockey is also traditionally a "white" sport (not many blacks in NHL historically), while for example basketball seems to be a more "black" sport. It doesn't have to do with skin colour. The immigrants may just come from countries (white or black or whatever) with little hockey tradition.

I also mentioned another point about this. Economic situation. Hockey is a rather expensive sport. I have an impression that blacks in general were poorer economically than whites, which may also have affected things.

For more points I made, se yesterday.

Yes, my point was not to do with colour but more what the interests of those people were/are. ie. not hockey. And I am not saying they can't/won't be interested in hockey. But they have their traditions and interests that do not change over night.

 

[danincanada]

Children of immigrants playing hockey goes back to early NHL - German - Schmidt, Bauer, Dumart, Italian - Jimmy Orlando, Countless Ukrainians/Russians who produced greater hockey players than the Soviets or Russians have - Dale Hawerchuk, John, Bucyk, Terry Sawchuk, Johnny Bower, Mike Bossy,. Wayne Gretzky is another example of immigration to Canada producing talented hockey players.

Exactly, which is why we can't exclude newer Canadians from being candidates for playing/excelling at hockey.

 

[Stonefly]

Exactly, which is why we can't exclude newer Canadians from being candidates for playing/excelling at hockey.

I didn't say exclude them. My point was, that group are less inclined to play/be interested in hockey. Immigrants are largely from completely different areas as well. Lots from the Middle East and Asia instead of European countries. When I go to the rinks these days I don't see too many Asian Or Middle Eastern kids playing hockey but I see a lot of them around town.

It's a different time from the early NHL days as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Deeper Analysis

Maybe that's at least partly because you and the thread starter mostly seem to ignore attemps at put a deeper analysis into the discussion.

Before looking at a deeper analysis we have to have an understanding of the various elements. Specifically details like the availability and use of ice time,rules, coaching at the various developmental eras across eras, jurisdictions,etc.

In due time.

 

[Killion]

The "Population Myth" is just that, a "myth". According to 2006 Stats Canada figures, immigration (6 in 10 coming from Asia, East Asia, Middle East) was at its highest levels in 75yrs. Previous waves virtually from this countries foundings were of French, British & Norther European & Mediterranean heritage through the 1950's & 60's. The study found that;

1) Amateur Sports participation is declining.
2) Household Income & Family Structure play a large role in determining participation.
3) Parental Attitudes towards a sport determines their childrens participation.
4) Region, and Rural or Urban location plays a big role in participation.
5) Children of Immigrants are less likely (32%) to participate.
6) Children of Canadian born parents are more likely (52%) to participate.

amongst several other factors. Additionally, the study found that Soccer & Swimming were the number 1&2 participatory sports; hockey in the 3rd slot. Canada & the US are now pretty much equal in terms of numbers of registered players at the amateur level, a statistic that favored Canada in the past due to climate, culture, sociological, economic, immigration, ethnicity, linguistic elements & so forth. Amateur hockey in both Canada & the US remains a "boutique" sport, increasingly expensive, with the volume of its "manufactured products" ie; quality players who go on to pro careers' of a more one or two dimensional nature as opposed to the past when greater rein to creativity was permitted in the nurturing of skills was afforded & affordable.

What we have now are numerous 'AAA' amateur level leagues in name only, as a more homogeneous approach to evaluation & coaching/certification was instituted post 72 & the Summit Series that in Canada caused a re-evaluation of how we taught our kids the game at a young age. Looking at North Americas' largest amateur system & league, the Greater Toronto Hockey League for example, in the 60's there were app. 20,000 kids registered from AA, A & B; today over 50,000, the re-categorizations now being AAA, AA & A. Todays AAA were yesterdays AA's & so on. Somewhere along the way the lines got blurred. Maybe 1/2 of todays AAA leagues have AAA teams in them, playing against AA competition. I think from what Ive read, seen & heard, be it Montreal, Toronto or Pennsylvania, a standard should be implemented by a non-partisan non-political group that determines which organizations are in fact AAA & which are AA or A. There are a lot more kids playing, but there not receiving the kind of coaching they need because in a lot of cases there playing over their heads as a result of politics & pretensions. This is not so good for the late bloomers, while it also increases the drop-out rates between 14-16.

Anyhooo, just some general observations & points. Have at er'.....

 

[Canadiens1958]

"aaa"

The "Population Myth" is just that, a "myth". According to 2006 Stats Canada figures, immigration (6 in 10 coming from Asia, East Asia, Middle East) was at its highest levels in 75yrs. Previous waves virtually from this countries foundings were of French, British & Norther European & Mediterranean heritage through the 1950's & 60's. The study found that;

1) Amateur Sports participation is declining.
2) Household Income & Family Structure play a large role in determining participation.
3) Parental Attitudes towards a sport determines their childrens participation.
4) Region, and Rural or Urban location plays a big role in participation.
5) Children of Immigrants are less likely (32%) to participate.
6) Children of Canadian born parents are more likely (52%) to participate.

amongst several other factors. Additionally, the study found that Soccer & Swimming were the number 1&2 participatory sports; hockey in the 3rd slot. Canada & the US are now pretty much equal in terms of numbers of registered players at the amateur level, a statistic that favored Canada in the past due to climate, culture, sociological, economic, immigration, ethnicity, linguistic elements & so forth. Amateur hockey in both Canada & the US remains a "boutique" sport, increasingly expensive, with the volume of its "manufactured products" ie; quality players who go on to pro careers' of a more one or two dimensional nature as opposed to the past when greater rein to creativity was permitted in the nurturing of skills was afforded & affordable.

What we have now are numerous 'AAA' amateur level leagues in name only, as a more homogeneous approach to evaluation & coaching/certification was instituted post 72 & the Summit Series that in Canada caused a re-evaluation of how we taught our kids the game at a young age. Looking at North Americas' largest amateur system & league, the Greater Toronto Hockey League for example, in the 60's there were app. 20,000 kids registered from AA, A & B; today over 50,000, the re-categorizations now being AAA, AA & A. Todays AAA were yesterdays AA's & so on. Somewhere along the way the lines got blurred. Maybe 1/2 of todays AAA leagues have AAA teams in them, playing against AA competition. I think from what Ive read, seen & heard, be it Montreal, Toronto or Pennsylvania, a standard should be implemented by a non-partisan non-political group that determines which organizations are in fact AAA & which are AA or A. There are a lot more kids playing, but there not receiving the kind of coaching they need because in a lot of cases there playing over their heads as a result of politics & pretensions. This is not so good for the late bloomers, while it also increases the drop-out rates between 14-16.

Anyhooo, just some general observations & points. Have at er'.....

The key element in your presentation is bolded. This varies from hockey jurisdiction to jurisdiction but the roots of the situation remain constant. - a perception that quantity is preferable to quantity and the parallel pass the buck political thinking and compromising. Example the QMJHL - 16 teams, holds an entry draft for its territory, distributing Midget age players, mainly "AAA".

The QMJHL is a four year league requiring app 25 players per team, total 400, per year. Midget AAA in Quebec a one year league also has 16 teams., producing 100-125 players a year combined with the various maritime leagues and US eligible territories is more than enough.

Developmental theories vary. Create a 8-10 team Midget AAA with high level intense competition or a more leisurely, less intense league of 16, each producing 100-125 players?

The political reality is different with a 16 team Midget AAA league. Every jurisdiction in Quebec is satisfied with representation. Plus the Midget AAA people pass the buck to the QMJHL.Either way we gave you 100-125 players that you failed to bring to NHL Entry Draft quality.

 

[arrbez]

Immigration is something that must be considered but there are lots of immigrants and/or their children who do play hockey. PK Subban and Nazem Kadri are just two examples.

I think in a lot of cases the nature of immigration is very telling.

I was working at a youth centre in downtown Toronto last year, and it was almost all first-generation kids we were working with (or kids who moved here very young). They were mainly from Asia, coming from poorer families, mostly associated within their own communities, and hockey wasn't even on their radar.

On the other hand, I went to high school in Richmond Hill (a high-immigration suburb of Toronto) and had plenty of Asian friends who were into hockey. I'd say the majority of those kids were coming from middle-class families, many of whom moved to Canada with money from Hong Kong before the repatriation to China in the 90's. Although Richmond Hill is extremely diverse, everyone there was exposed to "Canadian Culture", whereas the kids living downtown near Chinatown weren't.

And to make a broad generalization, most people raising a family will choose the suburbs or outlying areas if they can afford it. In a lot of cases, the first-generation kids growing up right in the city are going to be from poorer backgrounds, and thus less likely to play an expensive sport like hockey.

That's just an example, but it really makes a difference how insular of an immigrant community kids grow up in. Along with a ton of other socio-economic factors, it leads to the outlying and suburban areas of Toronto being arguably the top hockey hotbed in the world, while the downtown core lags behind.