[BLAZE_MkIV]

They only want equality when it's to their advantage. They get all whiny about harassment when the guys at work treat them like guys.

[subego]

Oh, here we go...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, it's not like they can compete in the NBA. Strikes me as knowing your limits. And the amount of women who play football competitively precludes any unified calls for equality.

Ann Meyers-Drysdale (GM of the Phoenix Mercury) was signed by the Pacers in 1979 , but was eventually cut.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ann Meyers-Drysdale (GM of the Phoenix Mercury) was signed by the Pacers in 1979 , but was eventually cut.

Sounds like she couldn't compete in the NBA.

[Chongo]

Does playing with the Harlem Globetrotters count? They have women on the team

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

For those that say we should keep some sports segregated by gender because of the advantage men have due to their strength, why do you stop at mere gender segregation? Why don't we separate the leagues by race since whites aren't as strong and can't run as fast?

Why would you want to compete in a sport where you will never win and never play or contribute in a meaningful manner?

Originally Posted by SSharon 

Personally, I think we should mix more sports rather than segregate them by any means. Why are we looking at the average capabilities of individuals of a gender? The average woman might not be as strong as a man, but there are plenty that are.

Maybe a professional female athlete is stronger than YOU but they will never be stronger or have the physical capabilities as a male professional athlete, it's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by SSharon 

If the issue is safety, wouldn't the weaker women naturally end up on the "JV" teams with the weaker men averaging the playing field?

ALL women would end up on the JV team if you mixed. Don't you see how that's unfair? What is so wrong with segregating and letting them compete with people who are physically closer in capabilities? At a young age, it'd be more enjoyable because you're not just getting absolutely dominated by boys all the time and at adolescence and beyond, the gap is just too big.

[abbaZaba]

Here's an E:60 story I watched awhile back about a 13-year old female pitcher dominating boys in Little League with a nasty knuckleball and fastball. She's crushing them now (they specifically talk about some boys crying after striking out to her), and she's been allowed to play with the boys because she is so good, but once adolescence hits there's going to be no hope for her. It's a great story and she's having a blast playing now, but it won't last forever.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/e60/n...ory?id=5386830

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

Why would you want to compete in a sport where you will never win and never play or contribute in a meaningful manner?

I feel that way about track because I'm white and have no chance of winning against someone from Ethiopia. Should I never compete?

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

Maybe a professional female athlete is stronger than YOU but they will never be stronger or have the physical capabilities as a male professional athlete, it's as simple as that.

Even in weightlifting there is more too it than just strength. I'm sure there are plenty of women who are taller/faster/whatever than many NBA players.

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

ALL women would end up on the JV team if you mixed. Don't you see how that's unfair? What is so wrong with segregating and letting them compete with people who are physically closer in capabilities? At a young age, it'd be more enjoyable because you're not just getting absolutely dominated by boys all the time and at adolescence and beyond, the gap is just too big.

I was only talking about professional sports or at least sports played by adults and not school teams, leagues, etc. And for later in life is the gap between males and females larger than the gap between black males and white males? In a devil's advocate kind of way all I want to know is why segregating based on gender because of advantages for the average person in a gender is ok, why is segregating a sport based on race (or anything else) not ok?

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I feel that way about track because I'm white and have no chance of winning against someone from Ethiopia. Should I never compete?

Do you play or have you ever played a sport? Are you aware there are other events the Track & Field encompasses other than long distance running? But who cares if you can't run in the same race as a dude or throw a discus after a guy? They're measured in distance and time, in fact the world record discus throw for females is FURTHER than the world record for males. This doesn't change my position though- I had mentioned earlier that sports that are heavily based on technique probably even out (I mentioned bowling and racquetball, then someone else mentioned Pool)

Originally Posted by SSharon 

Even in weightlifting there is more too it than just strength. I'm sure there are plenty of women who are taller/faster/whatever than many NBA players.

Look, you really shouldn't pick basketball as the sport to back up this opinion. Being tall does not make you good at basketball. Brittney Griner is 6'8" and can barely dunk and she's the most dominant woman in NCAA basketball. But she'd get worked one on one by any guy who knows how to play. In college (Penn State, Division I athletics) I would play basketball regularly at the IM building. On more than one occasion some girls from the D-I women's team would come and play. They were huge, but they would get worked on the court by random guys just trying to get on the court to play. I don't think I ever saw them win. The physical difference is just too great.

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I was only talking about professional sports or at least sports played by adults and not school teams, leagues, etc. And for later in life is the gap between males and females larger than the gap between black males and white males? In a devil's advocate kind of way all I want to know is why segregating based on gender because of advantages for the average person in a gender is ok, why is segregating a sport based on race (or anything else) not ok?

It really seems to me like you've never played a sport before. Black athletes are not head and shoulders above white athletes, like Males are with Females. I'm going to say females and males are segregated based on the fact that their GENDER is what inhibits them from competing on the same level. Gender decides how you are going to develop physically and females just can't make up the difference.

[sek929]

I played varsity soccer in HS and once and a while we'd scrimmage the girls team.

Some of these girls were very fast, very good ball handlers (heh), and their goalie had incredible quickness. It didn't matter, the overwhelming physicality of our mens team was enough to muscle them out, literally, so that it never came down to a pure skills competition. We didn't play dirty, but even the weakest boy was stronger and tougher than their strongest girl.

If it made monetary sense (which is what all sport boils down to) every professional team in the country would hire women to help win. Not to mention, the way the sexes are coached is incredibly different too. In girl's sports, the focus is on positivity and reinforcement of good behavior. In men's sports, the focus is on what you did wrong and chastising you to not to do it again.

Even in bowling (I'm actually on a bowling team) would you say that arm strength and the ability to throw a heavy ball faster doesn't make a difference? I'm not a pro by any means, and I'm sure scores of women would out-bowl me, but I'd wager dollars to donuts that the top men bowlers would always beat the top women bowlers.

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't understand why the gender gap in basketball is so wide.

We don't play basketball anywhere near as much in the UK but I remember playing mixed basketball when I was about 15 or so. The girls didn't dribble at all, they didn't usually even try. They were much better at shooting than the boys were however. The differences were down to netball. The girls had been taught how to shoot properly playing netball and had done a lot more practice at shooting. You can't run with the ball in netball so they weren't used to it and just didn't bother.
The boys on the other hand had never been taught to shoot properly and were much more interested showboating trying to do lay-ups all the time.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Even in bowling (I'm actually on a bowling team) would you say that arm strength and the ability to throw a heavy ball faster doesn't make a difference? I'm not a pro by any means, and I'm sure scores of women would out-bowl me, but I'd wager dollars to donuts that the top men bowlers would always beat the top women bowlers.

I couldn't say for certain, but bowling to me doesn't seem as simple as heavier ball=more strikes. It seems to me to be extremely heavy on technique and how the ball comes off the hand and how it hits the pins, so I'd wager that'd it'd be pretty equal between the genders. But, again, I don't bowl other than once in a blue moon

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't understand why the gender gap in basketball is so wide.

We don't play basketball anywhere near as much in the UK but I remember playing mixed basketball when I was about 15 or so. The girls didn't dribble at all, they didn't usually even try. They were much better at shooting than the boys were however. The differences were down to netball. The girls had been taught how to shoot properly playing netball and had done a lot more practice at shooting. You can't run with the ball in netball so they weren't used to it and just didn't bother.
The boys on the other hand had never been taught to shoot properly and were much more interested showboating trying to do lay-ups all the time.

big difference between netball and basketball. I'm guessing netball:basketball is like softball:baseball? I don't know much about netball, but how you describe the boys "showboating" trying to get layups makes sense: in basketball, you're always told to go strong to the hoop and use the backboard for a higher percentage shot.

I didn't play HS basketball as I didn't really get into it until college, but I remember being in gym class on a particular day when we were allowed to play whatever we wanted. a girl who liked me and who was on the girls basketball team challenged me to a one-on-one to 11 and I beat her pretty handily and I am not a large guy by any means.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

It really seems to me like you've never played a sport before. Black athletes are not head and shoulders above white athletes, like Males are with Females. I'm going to say females and males are segregated based on the fact that their GENDER is what inhibits them from competing on the same level. Gender decides how you are going to develop physically and females just can't make up the difference.

I've played plenty of sports through various school teams or organized leagues. Soccer, ice hockey, basketball, wrestling, bowling, baseball, softball, and probably more.

On the wrestling team in high school it became apparent that technique would beat out superior strength in almost every case. This is why I think more sports should be co-ed. The drastic differences we see in performance might just be because women haven't been given the chance to refine their technique by having better coaches, starting to play earlier in life, etc.

As for segregating based on gender vs. race or some other criteria I don't think any objective study has been done to show that males are X points more superior than women, but African runners are only X minus Y points superior and the smaller gap isn't enough to necessitate segregation. Who decides how big the gap must be?

[P]

For the longest time, there was no evidence that the advantage of African runners on medium range running was genetic. It was quite possible that the advantage was only cultural - that the populations of these countries simply ran more in their everyday lives. Today we know that there is a definite genetic variant that is the reason in at least some of these cases (the population in parts of Kenya have a much lower bone mass in their lower legs, similar to birds, which grants them an advantage when running).

You say that technique beats brute force. Fair enough, but at a high enough level, the differences in technique will be small enough that force becomes a deciding factor.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by P 

For the longest time, there was no evidence that the advantage of African runners on medium range running was genetic. It was quite possible that the advantage was only cultural - that the populations of these countries simply ran more in their everyday lives. Today we know that there is a definite genetic variant that is the reason in at least some of these cases (the population in parts of Kenya have a much lower bone mass in their lower legs, similar to birds, which grants them an advantage when running).

You say that technique beats brute force. Fair enough, but at a high enough level, the differences in technique will be small enough that force becomes a deciding factor.

Like I said, my issue is with the lack of quantification. How many "advantage points" does that lower bone mass equal? Is that more or less than the number of advantage points a male has because they can lift objects 50lbs heavier than women?

How much of the advantages we are discussing are a result of the "Outlier" effect that Malcolm Gladwell discusses in his book? (I think it was in Outliers, but if not it was whichever book discussed the 10,000 hour rule for becoming an expert at something.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

I couldn't say for certain, but bowling to me doesn't seem as simple as heavier ball=more strikes. It seems to me to be extremely heavy on technique and how the ball comes off the hand and how it hits the pins, so I'd wager that'd it'd be pretty equal between the genders. But, again, I don't bowl other than once in a blue moon

Weight definitely helps in bowling. It's simple physics, the more weight in the ball, the more momentum is transferred to the pins (collectively). It's better to have pins flying around into each other than to just barely tip over. Also a lighter ball is deflected more by the pins (which are constant weight), so 6 pounds often visibly bounce to the side missing the pins in the back, where 16 pounds would crash right through them all. By the same token of momentum, the harder you can throw the ball, the more momentum it carries. Momentum = mass x velocity.

There is also a challenge to using strength and fine control muscle fibers at the same time. It's not weight-lifting, but by the end of the game (or 5), you do find it difficult to control your movements with the same precision, and lighter weight balls certainly make doing that easier again.

[The Final Dakar]

Solid breakdown.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Weight definitely helps in bowling. It's simple physics, the more weight in the ball, the more momentum is transferred to the pins (collectively). It's better to have pins flying around into each other than to just barely tip over. Also a lighter ball is deflected more by the pins (which are constant weight), so 6 pounds often visibly bounce to the side missing the pins in the back, where 16 pounds would crash right through them all. By the same token of momentum, the harder you can throw the ball, the more momentum it carries. Momentum = mass x velocity.

There is also a challenge to using strength and fine control muscle fibers at the same time. It's not weight-lifting, but by the end of the game (or 5), you do find it difficult to control your movements with the same precision, and lighter weight balls certainly make doing that easier again.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Solid breakdown.

I'm not questioning the physics, but I don't think it matters much here. Regulation bowling balls are 16lbs and you don't need to be a female body builder to handle that. The speed is also generally under 20mph so again nothing that requires extreme amounts of power. Good technique can get you strikes at speeds easily attainable by women so everything is pretty fair. Overall endurance is important if you are bowling 5 games in a row, but even then good form reduces strain.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I'm not questioning the physics, but I don't think it matters much here. Regulation bowling balls are 16lbs and you don't need to be a female body builder to handle that. The speed is also generally under 20mph so again nothing that requires extreme amounts of power. Good technique can get you strikes at speeds easily attainable by women so everything is pretty fair. Overall endurance is important if you are bowling 5 games in a row, but even then good form reduces strain.

That wasn't exactly the question, and in fact a woman has won professional men's bowling tournaments before. But I'm also not surprised there's a women's league too, because you do need a certain amount of arm strength to keep up, and women start with less of that.

[subego]

How's about duckpin?

[Waragainstsleep]

So could a team sport be created that had different roles within each team specifically suited to men and women?

Lets leave out "Olympic Sex" as a suggestion please.

[abbaZaba]

Creating a new sport just so men and women can play "equally" together? come on...why is this so important?

[The Final Dakar]

How about curling?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

Creating a new sport just so men and women can play "equally" together? come on...why is this so important?

Just thought it might make an interesting sport.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How about curling?

...up on the couch and asking for back scratches.

Women totally win at that one.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

...up on the couch and asking for back scratches.

Women totally win at that one.

[andi*pandi]

In football, correct me if I'm wrong since I don't play, but aren't there linebackers who are big huge guys that block and tackle, and there's the quarterback, a smaller guy whose job it is to run fast and throw the ball. Those are roles defined by size and skill.

Maybe you'd rarely ever have a woman fullback, but a woman quarterback?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In football, correct me if I'm wrong since I don't play, but aren't there linebackers who are big huge guys that block and tackle, and there's the quarterback, a smaller guy whose job it is to run fast and throw the ball. Those are roles defined by size and skill.

Maybe you'd rarely ever have a woman fullback, but a woman quarterback?

Quarterbacks are smaller, but they're not small. Being tall enough to throw over hands potentially swatting the ball down is an advantage, as is having the strength to shake off tacklers, and an arm that can launch a ball 80 yards.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In football, correct me if I'm wrong since I don't play, but aren't there linebackers who are big huge guys that block and tackle, and there's the quarterback, a smaller guy whose job it is to run fast and throw the ball. Those are roles defined by size and skill.

Maybe you'd rarely ever have a woman fullback, but a woman quarterback?

defensive linemen are almost always over 6'3" to swat passes. Peyton Manning is 6'5" 240lbs, Andrew Luck is 6'4" and 230, Brett Favre is 6'2" ~230lbs, my favorite QB Joe Montana was 6'2" and only 210lbs.

When Alex Smith came out of college (49ers QB), many people said his hands were too small to throw the ball well, and it's still undecided if he's a franchise quarterback. I didn't even think about hand size for women until I typed that last sentence. That might be their single "biggest" disadvantage for playing QB

[The Final Dakar]

Boy field hockey star kicked off girls' team for being 'too good' | Fox News

A 13-year-old Long Island boy who has been the star of a local high school girls' field hockey team for the past two years has been kicked off the team for being too dominant of a player, MyFoxNY reports.

Keeling Pilaro was told he could no longer play for Southampton High School's varsity girls' field hockey team this year after becoming the team's star over the past two years.

Section 11, which oversees Suffolk County's high school sports, determined that as a boy, Keeling had too significant an advantage over the other players.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Maybe you'd rarely ever have a woman fullback, but a woman quarterback?

Well, you'll never find female quarterbacks that can run and throw like a male, and besides, QBs get tackled by those 300 lbs players, and sometimes several at once.

[macroy]

As a golfer and former volleyball player - the men's game's are completely different different from the womens. In Volleyball, the play is much quicker and more powerful in the men's arena. And in general - the men jump much higher. Unless things have changed in the last 10-15 years, women's net is about 8" shorter than the men's.

In golf - LPGA courses are typically 6200-6500 yards. The PGA is mostly around 7000 yards. The PGA fairways are narrower and the rough higher/thicker. The greens also roll faster. The men also are much longer than the women (PGA driving average is about 270 and LPGA is about 220).

That said - the comparaison has to be apples to apples. You can't compare a weekend warrior to a professional athlete. IMO - A low handicap male golfer will still have no chance against a LPGA player.