Not sure where you are going here.Cornuck wrote:
Example "A" George W Bush (vs) Alex Burrows.
Burr is an average Joe with limited hockey skill?
Is that the contention?
Moderator: Referees
Not sure where you are going here.Cornuck wrote:
Example "A" George W Bush (vs) Alex Burrows.
No - but it seems like he worked his ass off to get from the "E" to the top line on of the best teams in hockey.donlever wrote: Burr is an average Joe with limited hockey skill?
Nothing personal, it's Monday, there's no hockey, it's cold, I'm still on my first coffee and the dart hit your name.donlever wrote:lol
So you decide I'm the guy who gets the jab then eh?
Even Burrows, (who is perhaps the poster child for guys coming out of no where to be a good pro) was still playing major jr. hockey at 17, which means he was probably still one of the very best players in his age group early on.Cornuck wrote:
Example "A" George W Bush (vs) Alex Burrows.
read it again both of you,coco_canuck wrote:On one hand he rails against the mythical dream that anyone can just become wealthy, but then contradictorily perpetuates the mythical dream that anyone can become a pro-athlete.Potatoe1 wrote: Have a look at this years first round, how many of those kids have a father or brother in the league?
Do you think that's just random?
The truth is it's parents and families that produce great hockey players. They pass on their genes, then put them on skates when they are 3, then buy them new gear, then get them to the rink at 5 every day, then get them the best coaching, then invest thousands to make sure that by 13 years old they are on the radar for the Bantom draft.
The vast, vast majority of players drafted into the NHL have already cast their die by that age. Those who make it later are a total anomaly.
Laughable indeed.
Yes, yes, both actors on this stage were lucky and have characteristics that enable them to be relatively successful in their lives and that’s why they find themselves doing what they are doing. However, the opportunity and path to pro sports is open to anyone regardless of class or stature, while the path to the boardroom and key to the executive washroom is far from open.
Would that argument include the fact that the path to the board room goes right through private high schools, prep schools and elite universities that are not open to the general public and require not only money but the right connections and leverage to attend? Because if that argument doesn't have an answer for that, then its not going to be very convincing.donlever wrote:...it could actually be argued that the path to the board room and exec can is more readily available to the average Joe than any opportunity to play in a major sports league.
Or the NHL for that matter.
While I agree for the most part, you should include another 6+ years of apprenticeship as part of that career. (WHL and up)Listercat wrote:I take issue with anyone who feels their "career", if it ends in 6 years or 10 years should allow them to "retire". Whether its politicians or athletes it should piss off the working slob that is expected to pay for it.
It'd be nice if I didn't have to hold your hand through your own pseudo-intellectual arguments.ukcanuck wrote: Yes, yes, both actors on this stage were lucky and have characteristics that enable them to be relatively successful in their lives and that’s why they find themselves doing what they are doing. However, the opportunity and path to pro sports is open to anyone regardless of class or stature, while the path to the boardroom and key to the executive washroom is far from open.
It doesn't say "regardless of class [social] stature or ATHLETIC ability," Of course the path to a career in professional sports presupposes an inherent ability to perform at a professional level. forgive me for thinking that you would understand such a basic concept without my holding your hand.
I don't even have to answer, Coco did it for me.ukcanuck wrote:Would that argument include the fact that the path to the board room goes right through private high schools, prep schools and elite universities that are not open to the general public and require not only money but the right connections and leverage to attend? Because if that argument doesn't have an answer for that, then its not going to be very convincing.donlever wrote:...it could actually be argued that the path to the board room and exec can is more readily available to the average Joe than any opportunity to play in a major sports league.
Or the NHL for that matter.
I'll provide an example of an average Joe who made it.coco_canuck wrote:
What you also take for granted is the ability to move into big business without having much stature nor being part of an affluent social class. If an individual is endowed with great intelligence and an innovative mind, that person can conquer big business without being born into affluence.
That's a terrible example there Listercat!Listercat wrote:The average person's annual income in Canada is $46K. The lowest paid NHLer's earn in excess of $500K a year. Darcy Hordichuk for example has been in the NHL for the past 6 years and has earned an average of about $675K pa or a little over $4 mil in that time. The "average" wage earner would have to work 86 years to accomplish that. Even at $100K per year they would have to work 40 years.
I take issue with anyone who feels their "career", if it ends in 6 years or 10 years should allow them to "retire". Whether its politicians or athletes it should piss off the working slob that is expected to pay for it.