Got|Opinion 7.8.01: Should sports be integrated?

[pennypinch]

Women have long been discriminated against when it comes to sports. No matter what you think of their abilities relative to men, they've gotten the short end of so many sticks, be it financial (funding for sports for women), social (girls shouldn't play sports! They should play with dolls!), or psychological (women are physically inferior to men, so they should stick to less strenuous activities...like housework).

Recently, there's been a lot made of the great strides women have been making in athletics. Mia Hamm is an international star. Chamique Holdsclaw was a national name when she was in college. Women's tennis is so much more interesting than the boring drones we have manning the men's circuit. The WNBA is touted as being "more fundamentally sound" than the "I'll just jump over you" NBA.

But here's the thing: are we looking at their accomplishments in a vacuum? If WNBA players are so much more fundamentally sound, shouldn't they be able to compete with men? If Venus and Serena Williams can fire serves like the men, move like the men, and hit shots like the men...WHY NOT PLAY WITH THE MEN? I wonder if a Mia Hamm in her prime could have made the men's national team?

Look at some of the sports that have been traditionally gender-blind: there was that woman that won the shooting gold medal at the last Olympics. Women car drivers have been historically successful and continue to represent in larger numbers and achievements.

I wonder some times if the difference in measurable performance is not biological, but psychological. Why CAN'T a female skier ski just as fast as a guy? Why CAN'T women be as quick as men? Why CAN'T a woman go yard off a major league pitcher?

So what's your opinion? Are we perpetuating a seperate-but-equal state here, or should women be allowed to shine in their own spheres? What would be your justification for integrating or keeping seperate men's and women's sports?

[reddeyez]

Keep 'em separate! We can't go around beating up our chicks now can we?

[froggystyle]

you know what always got me? nine ball....what in the world separates the men from the women in pool...and yet there is always a mens and womens division? thats just peculiar to me

[Kim]

I say why not? As long as the women can deal with the physicallity (is that a word?) of playing with the men. I do think that most men would tend to "take it easy on the girl" though. Or, maybe be tougher on her? Never mind, I admit that I know nothing of sports. But, I think that if my daughter were great at a sport and she wanted more competition than she got from other women I would want her to have the opportunity.

[TheLoneGunman]

Discriminated against????

How tall is the average WNBA player?
Compare that to the average NBA player.

Sure people like Cheryl Swopes are great, but imagine her one-on-one against Shaq. It would be a joke!! Dikembe Motumbo would make them all look like mini-me!!

As far as track, compare the average field times of men to women. Obviously whoever you are racing against, you will try to get the fastest time, so we can compare the times as if they were racing against each other. While the fastest women do sometimes beat the slower men, the men so overwhelmingly win, it would be MORE demoralizing to the women than if they were separate.

Then there are just basic physiological differences. In archery, it is hard to get full extension if you have breasts. That was one reason that certain Amazon females would cut off their breast. We really can't condone that activity in modern sports.

Compare the PERCENTAGE body fat in a female athlete to that of an equivalent male. The female is always higher. Next compare muscle mass (of females who aren't taking steroids). You will see that males have CONSIDERABLY more muscle because of these two factors. To use an analogy, sometimes in the right hands, a V-4 can beat a V-8, but properly run, the more powerful engine will always win.

If women are integrated and get clobbered, it will just make things worse

[Y2J]

Originally posted by pennypinch
The WNBA is touted as being "more fundamentally sound" than the "I'll just jump over you" NBA.


Tout all you want, the bottom line is is that they suck at basketball, and no amount of advertising and slogans is going to change that. I dont think anyone thinkgs they should integrate the nba, and if they do, it wont matter, no wnba player is better than keith closs anyways

[pennypinch]

Yes, I would say discriminated against. Despite the total failure that is Title IX, the intent was to increase funding to women, who I'd say have just as good a claim to playing sports as we with the twig and berries.

TLG: your analogy of size vis a vis the NBA vs. the WNBA is clearly erroneous. There are a ton of players in the 5'9" to 6'1" range in the NBA that all do quite nicely, thank you very much. Stephon Marbury routinely makes Dikembe Mutumbo look like a steaming pile of rhino crap, and he's LISTED at 6'1" (and you have to give NBA players like a 3" curve).

When it comes to archery, why wouldn't flat chested women do better than Hooter waitresses? We all know women that have famine levels of sweater meat; we are to assume these women are automatically going to be unable to compete with men?

I'll concede that, in certain situations, women probably aren't going to do too well. Playing offensive line, for instance, or one of the tight five in rugby. But I think it's those exact attitudes, that women are going to physiologically inferior, that enables to us to write female athletic achievements off.

Take a look at the greatest players in the top four sports: Michael Jordan. Pretty amazing athletically, but I'd say when he was at his greatest, later in his career, a lot of his athleticism had deserted him. Explain?

Wayne Gretzky: you ever meet the guy, you'd be stunned at how small the guy is. I'd peg him at 5'9", a buck sixty tops. He wasn't the fastest guy, either.

Barry Sanders: another guy that'd have to tip top to get to 5'10".

Babe Ruth: the guy was rotund, to put it mildly.

None of these guys possessed anything extraordinary physically, yet we regard them as some of the greatest in their respective trades. Isn't it possible that some women possess the mental and psychological make-up that allow them to excel, but we simply don't put them up against the best competition throughout their lives like we do the boys?

[\/\/|ZarD]

I believe a female has already played a guy in tennis. The name Billy Jean King ring a bell to anyone?
Stolen from The History Channel (http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/exhibits/millennium/sports.html)


1973: Billie Jean King beats Bobby Riggs

Billie Jean King shattered misconceptions about female athletes when she beat male professional tennis player Bobby Riggs, in a match seen by thirty-seven million television viewers. She was influential in her fight for equal pay for women tennis players and for access to sports for all women. In America, King also helped bring about the passage of Title IX to ensure equal access to sports for females in schools.

Women and men are free to play against each other in any sport, usually women have kept from playing against men because of the physical supporiority of men when it comes to most sports. There has even been a boxing match between a female and a male.(FYI) I believe there are most definately some sports that it would be fine to allow integration, but to keep the playing field equal it shouldn't be allowed throughout all sports.

[xsiled]

the 1 millionth pro tennis player beats the #1 women

HA

[dre]

You cannot compare women and mens sports because they are not even played equally. Take the rules for women tennis: women play less sets then the men because they don't have the endurance. In women's basketball, they play with a smaller ball. In boxing, they wear chest protection padding.

Auto racing. Historically women drivers are a danger on the track. Take Shawna Robinson. Of her six Nascar races this year she has wrecked twice and finished 33rd on average. Oddly enough she is allowed to race in the more prestigious Winston Cup Series because she is a woman. Meanwhile, more qualified male drivers are waiting to race in Winston. And what about Indy this year? Sarah Fisher received a lot of politically correct press coverage about being female and driving in Indy. What happened during the race? She wrecked and fractured the spine of another racer. Strange how CNN does not give the same amount of tv coverage of those results.

Anyone ever participate in their company's softball league? I was shocked to find out all the male players were required to bat reversed (if your a right batter you have to bat left handed). That was to make it fair for everyone. Hmmm.

As a final thought, take running. In that sport a person merely has to run themselves against the clock. No discrimination possible. Why does the fastest woman always finish behind the fastest man? I guess because the Timex clock was sexist. (it was designed by a man).

[flux0]

Pennypinch you are off your rocker and simply dont know the facts of Title 9.

I am going to put this in all capital letters so you understand. It is a overall fact, kinda like most clovers have 3 leaves.

GIRLS ARE LESS INTERESTED IN SPORTS THAN MEN.

It's basic chemistry. Men have more testosterone than women, which makes men want to generally expend a lot of energy, kill one another, try to be #1...it's the basic drive to compete! There is nothing we can do about it, it's there. Until they start injecting women with testosterone, Title 9 is a biased, unfair, disgusting piece of legislation.

A Brown university study showed males use intramural sports for recreation 8 times as much as women. Yet, Title 9 says that the amount of womens teams must be equal to that of the mens. So their are a huge number of men who do not get to play on their college team because of it. There are currently 26 NCAA sports for women and only 19 for men! Is that unfair or what?

The direct affect of title 9 since 1979 is that there are far far fewer athletic teams now than then, despite a huge increase in college students.

Athletic respect comes on the playing field, NOT in some lame legislation. Venus Williams is great, but 90% of the mens pro tennis players would kill her. I'd be suprised if she won one game.

If a girl wants to play on the same court as me, go ahead. I'll respect her, but I've never met a girl who would stand a chance against me on the basketball court. If a girl wants to compete, she can. Just go down to the local park, and join a pickup. If she is good, she gets respect. If you suck you sit. It's that simple.

Discrimination is built into sports! It's the essence of competition. The weak lose. If you think Cheryl Swoopes has the slightest chance in a 1 on 1 against any player in the NBA, you are living in a dreamworld.

flux

[Edited by flux0 on 07-08-2001 at 02:19 PM]

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by flux0
Pennypinch you are off your rocker and simply dont know the facts of Title 9.

I am going to put this in all capital letters so you understand. It is a overall fact, kinda like most clovers have 3 leaves.

GIRLS ARE LESS INTERESTED IN SPORTS THAN MEN.

It's basic chemistry. Men have more testosterone than women, which makes men want to generally expend a lot of energy, kill one another, try to be #1...it's the basic drive to compete! There is nothing we can do about it, it's there. Until they start injecting women with testosterone, Title 9 is a biased, unfair, disgusting piece of legislation.

A Brown university study showed males use intramural sports for recreation 8 times as much as women. Yet, Title 9 says that the amount of womens teams must be equal to that of the mens. So their are a huge number of men who do not get to play on their college team because of it. There are currently 26 NCAA sports for women and only 19 for men! Is that unfair or what?

The direct affect of title 9 since 1979 is that there are far far fewer athletic teams now than then, despite a huge increase in college students.

Athletic respect comes on the playing field, NOT in some lame legislation. Venus Williams is great, but 90% of the mens pro tennis players would kill her. I'd be suprised if she won one game.

If a girl wants to play on the same court as me, go ahead. I'll respect her, but I've never met a girl who would stand a chance against me on the basketball court. If a girl wants to compete, she can. Just go down to the local park, and join a pickup. If she is good, she gets respect. If you suck you sit. It's that simple.

Discrimination is built into sports! It's the essence of competition. The weak lose. If you think Cheryl Swoopes has the slightest chance in a 1 on 1 against any player in the NBA, you are living in a dreamworld.



How am I off my rocker when it comes to Title IX? I fully acknowledge that it's a massively stupid rule that isn't helping women and is actively hurting male athletes. Most schools are simply cutting male programs and keeping the female programs.

But if you honestly think that female athletes compete less intensely, dedicate themselves less, or anything like that, I submit it is YOU that is off your rocker.

And examine the genesis of the results of that Brown University study. WHY do men use rec sports 8 times more? Couldn't it be because it's never really be acceptable for women to be athletes at a young age? I mean, a lot of us were raised by products of the patriarichal ol' 50's. Love 'em or hate 'em, it's the Lucille Ball era. It's "nice" that a girl was active, while it's "natural" for a guy to be a four-sport athlete.

I'm only saying this: sports are NOT the sole biological domain of males, which is what you seem to be saying. You either don't know many women or haven't met any women that compete at a high level. I'll bet most of the women at a D-I level would absolutely take you to school, assuming you're a casual level basketball player.

I'm certainly not trying to argue that women are currently ready to compete across the board. Like someone said above, I'm sure there are instances where women would be at a clear physical disadvantage. What I'm saying is that perhaps they should be given a chance.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by dre
You cannot compare women and mens sports because they are not even played equally. Take the rules for women tennis: women play less sets then the men because they don't have the endurance. In women's basketball, they play with a smaller ball. In boxing, they wear chest protection padding.

Auto racing. Historically women drivers are a danger on the track. Take Shawna Robinson. Of her six Nascar races this year she has wrecked twice and finished 33rd on average. Oddly enough she is allowed to race in the more prestigious Winston Cup Series because she is a woman. Meanwhile, more qualified male drivers are waiting to race in Winston. And what about Indy this year? Sarah Fisher received a lot of politically correct press coverage about being female and driving in Indy. What happened during the race? She wrecked and fractured the spine of another racer. Strange how CNN does not give the same amount of tv coverage of those results.

Anyone ever participate in their company's softball league? I was shocked to find out all the male players were required to bat reversed (if your a right batter you have to bat left handed). That was to make it fair for everyone. Hmmm.

As a final thought, take running. In that sport a person merely has to run themselves against the clock. No discrimination possible. Why does the fastest woman always finish behind the fastest man? I guess because the Timex clock was sexist. (it was designed by a man).

Those results are what happens when a woman's used as a novelty. I'm trying to talk about equality here, and some woman that clearly does not deserve to be put in a position is just as wrong as if she was overqualified and being held out.

Likewise, batting reversed is equally stupid. That's starting off by ASSUMING women are worse at softball. Lemme tell you, I may be good at some sports, but I bet I'd be equally useless batting right or left! Meanwhile, there were some girls that do the same job as I do that were on the state softball all-star teams; dollars to doughnuts they would bat better left than I do right.

And I think a lot of you have missed my point: I'm not claiming that women have some sort of physical superiority or even equality; I just don't know. But by my examples above, it's obvious that physical ability is far from the only determinant, especially as the sport becomes more and more mental (i.e., pool or archery). I think assuming some girl's going to be worse at sports because she's a girl is both dangerous and unfair.

[sbp]

{drinks a beer while enjoying the thread} http://sbp777777.homestead.com/files/zxdrinkbeer.gif

[Sillycon]

In terms of pure physical skills, men are always going to have the advantage. Integration would be a novelty and it would only serve to lower the level of competition. Other sports that don't rely on physical skills(racing cars for example) are the best bet for females to integrate with the males.

Let's talk about Venus Williams. I remember an interview which detailed an encounter in which she(and Serena) played a lowly ranked(in the hundreds) male tennis player. The guy completely dumbfounded them.

The males will always be better than their female counterparts(in terms of the sports that rely on physical tools in addition to skill).

[flux0]

They ARE being given a chance! As should be obvious by the fact that there are more womens teams than mens.

I am sure there are women who could beat me at bastketball, and they are fully capable of being more detirmined than men. That's not the issue, dont try to twist words. I have never met one. That is the crux of the matter. Which is still...less women are interested in sports in general.

What do you want to do? Force more women to compete in sports? I dont watch womens basketball, not because I am biased. I dont watch it because it's boring. I watch womens tennis because it is more competitive. The points last longer, because women dont try to overpower their competitor.

Quit whining about inequality. The day a woman beats Michael Jordan 1 on 1 you will be right.

I think Time magazine said it best. Men and women are Different.

flux

[flux0]

Some facts for your digestion:

Average amount of brain cells:
Men 22.8 Billion
Women 19.3 Billion

Car Accidents Per 100 Million Miles: (Men drive 2.5x as much as women)
Men 304.7
Women 506.3

Men have better hand-eye coordination also.
However women generally are better at precision hand-eye coordination, and men are better at speed h-e coordination.

All of these facts are wrong when talking about one individual, but when you start talking about society and a whole group of people. These facts must be taken into account.

[Edited by flux0 on 07-08-2001 at 03:41 PM]

[Bladderman]

i was coaching tennis for the girl's team at a local high school, one of the HARDEST things was getting them to have that "killer instinct" (not my words, the other coach's words) to be driven to beat their competitor. the girls would sort of just give points away to the person they were playing against if the ball was "close" or questionable.

as opposed to the guys teams who,... were more,... uhhh,... instinctive? (more fights, more quarrels, etc.)

however, with that said,... as a martial artist instructor, going easy on a girl landed me with nice fat bruise on my thigh and stomach, not to mention having the wind knocked out of me for a bit. =)

i don't know if this has been posted, but my personal experience has been that females are faster, quicker, have better hand-eye coordination, and are more precise/accurate (?) with the way they play sports.

just my 2 cents for this thread,... going back into my lurker mode. =)

[eSDee]

Originally posted by flux0

GIRLS ARE LESS INTERESTED IN SPORTS THAN MEN.

Maybe as a whole, but those women that are interested in sports are just as interested as men. The dedication level of many professional women is indistinguishable from their male counterparts.



It's basic chemistry. Men have more testosterone than women, which makes men want to generally expend a lot of energy, kill one another, try to be #1...it's the basic drive to compete! There is nothing we can do about it, it's there. Until they start injecting women with testosterone, Title 9 is a biased, unfair, disgusting piece of legislation.


These are two different arguments. They don't relate. I agree with you that Title 9 is BS but it has nothing to do with the fact that we have testosterone and women don't.



A Brown university study showed males use intramural sports for recreation 8 times as much as women. Yet, Title 9 says that the amount of womens teams must be equal to that of the mens. So their are a huge number of men who do not get to play on their college team because of it. There are currently 26 NCAA sports for women and only 19 for men! Is that unfair or what?


Yes it is unfair. Should be changed.



Athletic respect comes on the playing field, NOT in some lame legislation. Venus Williams is great, but 90% of the mens pro tennis players would kill her. I'd be suprised if she won one game.

While the level of play differs in many sports from women to men, I think that off all sports, tennis has the smallest gap. I believe that Venus Williams could kick many a professional mens players ass, let alone win just one game. Tennis is a combination of many skills, two of which are strength and speed. Muscle mass does not necessarily ensure success, and in her case, Venus AND her sister both have an awesome combination of strength and speed. I've read that Venus has a serve clocked at 120 mph, which is well faster than many professional men. She also has a powerful,accurate forehand which could cause anyone trouble returning. Perhaps a Sampras/Williams match might be one sided, but it wouldn't be a wipe out I will bet you that.



Discrimination is built into sports! It's the essence of competition. The weak lose. If you think Cheryl Swoopes has the slightest chance in a 1 on 1 against any player in the NBA, you are living in a dreamworld.


Cheryl Swoopes isn't even the best WNBA player, just the most recognizable. There are many players that are faster, stronger, and have a better shot than Swoopes. While going up against Shaq or Motombo would be a futile battle, there are a few women in the WNBA that I believe could be decent point guards in the NBA just because of their speed, ball handling skills, and outside jumpshot. Maybe they wouldn't be scoring a bunch of points but assists for sure.

While I believe that women athletes like the Williams sisters have mad skillz in their sports, I don't believe that men and womens sports should be integrated. While the top athletes of each sport might be able to compete against eachother, the less experienced women in the sport would have a much harder time competing with men. This could discourage many women from playing sports at all if they thought they had to compete against men, which would be going in the wrong direction. An accurate measure of skill would be to measure against your peers, which you wouldn't be doing if the sport included both genders.

On a sidenote, I saw a clip on ESPN about a year ago where this female kickboxer challenged any man to a fight or something to that effect. Of course, the men who took her up on it were out of shape bar stool brawlers. In the video I saw, the kickboxing woman made short work of her opponent. Like 10 seconds in, she kicked the guy on the side of his head and knocked him out. It was beautiful :)

[Leon]

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/6251/malevfem.htm

[eSDee]

Originally posted by Leon
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/6251/malevfem.htm

Hmmm that has to be the one I was thinking about. I must have combined the story with some old UFC footage I have floating around in my head. :D

[eSDee]

oh no wait, here it is:

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/6251/malevfem2.htm

[TheCorp]

I feel the matter is truly a simple one. In sports, you try your best to make the playing field as even as possible so as to bring out the best in players and so that no one can bitch and whine like me when I play sports =)

I mean there is no denying that men and women are physically different. Arguing that point is useless. What I think is worthwhile arguing is that do women provide enough competition for each other. From what Pennypinch has been saying, I am thinking he means that if women played with men and broke that psycholigical barrier that they are inferior to men, they would "rise" to the occasion and become better than if they played with just women. Am I right in this assumption Penny? My response though, would be sure, definitely, they get enough competition on their own.

Anyways, beyond the point of physical differences, men and women play on a level playing field if you ask me. Im sure that men have more brain cells, but as my girlfriend has made quite clear to me, we rarely use enough of them =) Can a woman and man play chess together, free of any fear that one has some sort of inherent advantage over the other? Id like to think so. But there is no way of proving that, so ill just leave that as another question. Anyways, all this talk of sports has given me a hankerin' for the most awesome of all sports. Soccer? No. Basketball? No. Football? No. What could it possibly be!? Full Contact Origami. Ohhh yea =)

Jason "The Corp" Joseph
-- Your "other" favorite admin...

Oh btw ... Venus would get her clock cleaned by any of the Wimbledon mens players. I am talking 6-1 6-0 type games. Its no offence to her skill, but they would truly wipe the court with her. One because of skill, two because of physical advantages, and three, she wouldn't be used to playing tennis at that level.

[xsiled]

o no venus' 70mph serve iz gonna hurt me

[icarus]

I'm not going to reiterate what alot of folks have said, but the fact is, biologically, men are larger and taller than women. In certain sports, just this physical advantage is --nearly-- insurmountable. Yes there are short NBA players, yes there are tiny NFL players. But these are far and away the exceptions.

I'd like to respond to a few things. Regarding the Venus vs. men argument. In all likelyhood, she could compete (not dominate, but play fairly evenly) against the men ranked about #50 and below. Venus is an amazing player, and tennis is not all about power. It is a factor but it's only one. She is very powerful, but she is only about as powerful as the most mediocre professional men. For her to do well against those said men (50 and below), she would win because of her skill, her ability to place the ball well and her mental fortitude. For the most part, the men below 50 are there because they aren't as consistent as the higher ranked men. It's not really a difference in strength or power, but placement, and placement requires consistency. She wouldn't be able to overpower those men, but she could 'outplay' them. This would most likely not be true with the highest ranked men, who are there not only because they are among the most powerful players (e.g.Ivanisevic who lives and dies by the power of his serve -- let's face it, the rest of his game is only about as good as the 100th ranked man), but primarily because they have repeatable accuracy. This combination would be too much for any woman player to date (Steffi and Venus the only possible, marginable exceptions). I'm not saying that someday women and men wouldn't be able to compete on the same level in tennis, but that it could not happen today. They would have to play each other all through juniors and on up. The women would have to train to be strong. I mean look at Venus, she's huge for a female tennis player, but she's probably only as strong as the average guy who may or may not work out at all.

Here's an example. Back when I was young and in shape about 8 years ago, I was at the height of my tennis career (what little one there was). In the 18's age group, I was ranked about 40th in my regional division (encompassed the St. Louis metro area). One of my practice partners at a local tennis club was a woman, about the same age. She was the number 25th ranked woman in her age group in the nation, the whole country. She was 1st in the Missouri Valley national region (encompassed parts of 4 or 5 states). We played pretty often and I would beat her 4 out of 5 matches. What this illustrates is this: although we were at similar skill levels, she was the top, the elite in her group, whereas I was above average. Alot of this has to do with the fact that more boys play tennis (and sports for that matter) than girls, so there's less competition for girls, which results in them not being pushed as hard and as far as boys.

If the men and women were mixed together in professional tennis, you would see about 4 or 5 women in the top 100, but it would be very difficult for them to break into a top 10 position. If they were mixed over all levels down to the youngest junior level, after a few years, things may begin to even out more as competition between the sexes improves and forces the women to be better than they are now.

I saw a comment above that mentioned the farce that was the Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs 'battle of the sexes' tennis match. That was such a joke. Billy Jean King was one of the dominant women tennis players at the time, whereas the man, Bobby Riggs, was about 50 years old, out of shape and he wasn't really ever that good anyway. Personally, I think it was more embarassing for equality in sports than anything, it turned the issue into a farcical spectacle.

Bottom line is that integration in sports will not be possible in all sports, but will in others.

[ironchef]

Raise a woman with the opportunities, support and stereotypes as you do a man, and I'll wager you'll have yourself a damn fine athlete. Yeah, things have improved from when our parents were growing up, but there are still ridiculous assumptions (as evidenced by some of the moronic replies to this thread) being made that hinder the progress of a female athlete.

And who says it has to be an equal playing field? And why compare a female with Shaq? How many guys in the NBA can hold their own against that moose? What, maybe 1-2 guys on each team? How many teams have marginal outside point men? Why not take out some slow and outta shape fringe player and replace him with someone with speed and finesse?

When was the goal-tending rule brought into basketball? Not that long ago, if I remember correctly. And why was it brought in? Because there were some new tall fellas, playing in a style that totally threw off traditional play. Goal tending, 3-second rules, shot clocks etc. -- these were all introduced to keep these new players with unorthodox playing styles from dominating the game.

These rules carry the marginal player along with the rest, identifying him as the hard worker and hustle man. If those same rules were changed for a woman, she'd be a bitch and cry baby.

Let women play whatever and whereever the hell they want. Let the game evolve around them. Take your statistics and BS theories about physicality and what a woman wants and use 'em to keep your own daughter and wife in their place. Don't apply them to the rest of the world because you're scared.

[sbp]

separate :P


[Edited by sbp on 07-08-2001 at 08:28 PM]

[TheLoneGunman]

Let me venture an alternative notion:

SEPARATE sports HELP women to succeed at sports

This is because it doubles the number of "Top Ten" spots and therefore nurtures women with less winnings in the gene pool.

Three examples:

1. Basketball - Sure, I will concede some of the above examples, but look at it this way... Manute Bol, Dikembe Motombo and others got their advantage primarily because of a lucky draw in the gene pool. If women who were on the high end of the female pool (5'10 - 6'1) joined, they would be competing for the few spots of "small guy" on teams. On the other hand, a 6'1 woman in women's basketball would tower over most of the other players like Manute does to the men.

2. Marathon - Again, there are women that regularly finish among the top 20 of both sexes. However, imagine you are the 3rd woman to cross the line. If we were sex-blind, that woman would be a mediocre 52, but measured separately, she wins money and awards as the 3rd place finisher. Which is more encouraging to young girls?

3. Pool - While women might be able to hold their own, there are still biases that hurt the women. As a result, it would be harder for them to dominate the sport. If they are kept separate, then there will 10 women in the top 10 instead of maybe 5.

---------

Here is another way to look at it:

Why don't we put wheelchair athletes in with regular ones?

At a certain point, there are advantages to keeping groups separate.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by sbp
separate :P


You don't even know how many other bugaboos there are that I have trouble spelling properly on a regular basis!

[Tse How]

No way. Venus would be played out of the men's tour. There are college men's tennis players that could take her. Its just the way that the sexes are built, physically. You think about it, there's a reason why women play THREE sets as opposed to FIVE sets for men, in the grand slams. Because the men, naturally (i mean on average, not a stereotype) have more stamina and strength than women do. Now, you have venus play a five setter against a fairly decent D1 male tennis athlete. I would wager a fair amount on that male.

On to the NBA. You may say that there are plenty of short players in the NBA, well there are a hell of a lot more shorter players in the WNBA. And if you want to count taller players, say at the center position? I dont think you could go past the number of fingers on one hand, for the WNBA. NO TEAM in the WNBA can beat Duke, UNC, ARIZONA, etc... top 25 college basketball team. NONE. Whereas, the chicago bulls should (i hope so, given their current sorry state) be able to beat the number 1 ranked college team. What does that tell you?

I'm all for women competing with men...if they can hang. And I am very sure a few of them can. And that would be just it-- a few. And hang by a thread in major sports. You see mia hamm replacing any one on the men's national team? Can you envision it? I dont think that would happen.

ANyways, thats my 3 cents.

[g222leav]

sorry, i didn't read all the posts, but here's my 2 cents...all i really care about is b-ball. and once i got into college, i've met some gals that've given me a run for my money (hopefully this doesn't measure my game)...but if a girl can come on the court, and not be intimidated, and can hang with the boys, more power to them. it seems as if they have to work harder to play with the boys, but i give the respect when it's due...

[ProMinx]

First off, and this point is quite obvious...Venus Williams is not a woman. I don't know where the hell you got that idea in the first place, but it is abundantly obvious that she has more penis than Agassi and Sampras put together (just ask Brooke Shields...another man).

Second, there are a number of reasons women are discriminated against in sports, and almost every one of them is completely valid. The women's games are slower paced, the star athletes are less impressive (for the most part, unless you're looking for bouncing flesh), the vast majority of female athletes are offensively unattractive, and the chicks try to fake some sort of tough attitude to scare the other women and impress the 3 viewers...and they fail. If you've ever watched a WNBA on TV, you will have noticed that it looks a lot like cruel high school ball, and if you've ever watched a WNBA game in person...you just volunteered yourself for a death camp.

ProMinx

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Then there are just basic physiological differences. In archery, it is hard to get full extension if you have breasts. That was one reason that certain Amazon females would cut off their breast. We really can't condone that activity in modern sports.

Dude...the Amazons never really existed. They were a greek myth...don't use them as a sincere object of comparison. I understand your point because I competed in archery (and fencing) as a child (don't i sound like the spoiled little english prince in that regard? at least i nver went fox hunting...poor foxes), but there are other reasons that women can't shoot as well as men...even without the Cha-chas. We're going right back to the muscle mass issue. Some women have aim that competes with the men at short distances, but the farther you go...the percentage of femmes that can hang with the guys drops inverse exponentially (this function decreases faster than any non-inv. exp. function) to zero.

ProMinx

[\/\/|ZarD]

Hmmm...
Ouch
That's all I can say to that

[pennypinch]

I think the responses in this thread prove my point. Women still have miles to go when it comes to being taken seriously as athletes.

The brain cell post is hilariously mysoginistic.

[Sillycon]

I doubt anyone is denigrating women athletes per se. There's no doubt women are/can be great athletes. It's when you try to measure them with their male counterparts that your argument fails. It just doesn't work. Upper echelon female athletes would not be able to compete with upper echelon male athletes... Move it down the rung and it'll always be like that throughout. As I stated previously in an earlier reply, competition is only feasible in an integrated environment if said sport doesn't rely on physical tools along with skill...

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by ProMinx

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Then there are just basic physiological differences. In archery, it is hard to get full extension if you have breasts. That was one reason that certain Amazon females would cut off their breast. We really can't condone that activity in modern sports.

Dude...the Amazons never really existed. They were a greek myth...don't use them as a sincere object of comparison.

What about Diana Prince (Wonder Woman)?
Was it all fake?
Does this mean that Twilight is the only real girl with a Tiara?

I am sooooo depressed.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by pennypinch
I think the responses in this thread prove my point. Women still have miles to go when it comes to being taken seriously as athletes.

The brain cell post is hilariously mysoginistic.

*gulp* I hate to admit this, but I agree with you pennypinch. :sad:

[koenig]

Mia Hamm an international celebrity? I think not.

Very few people know who she is outside the States. Women's football (sorry, soccer) is not as popular elsewhere as it is in the US.

Judging by the level of the MLS, she may have been able to make it into some of the teams involved.

If you want to see soccer at a high level watch an English, Italian, Spanish, German, or Dutch top premier game on F@x Sports World.

[molecularfire]

Hmmm... Interesting thread. But, when it comes down to it, there is only one fact that I know of. Anyone (male or female) who can hang with me at my level will earn my respect. Anyone who can't, won't. I'm not a great athlete and there are women who can hold their own against me. They have earned my respect. If I had to stereotype them, I'd have to say that they really don't care all that much about how women do in perfessional sports. They don't care if they're physically superior or inferior. They don't need words of encouragement or a sense that they're doing well. The toughest people that I've played with (men or women) see me as someone in their way and deal with me to win the game. Anyways, perfessional sports isn't about sports anyways. It's about money. As for society... When people stop making excuses for things, they will begin to succeed. An excuse - no matter how good it may sound - is just that, an excuse.

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman

Originally posted by ProMinx

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Then there are just basic physiological differences. In archery, it is hard to get full extension if you have breasts. That was one reason that certain Amazon females would cut off their breast. We really can't condone that activity in modern sports.

Dude...the Amazons never really existed. They were a greek myth...don't use them as a sincere object of comparison.

What about Diana Prince (Wonder Woman)?
Was it all fake?
Does this mean that Twilight is the only real girl with a Tiara?

I am sooooo depressed.

Yes, both Wonder Woman and the Amazon from Diablo 2 (notice how both WW and the game character still have both breasts? odd, huh?) are just figments of some little pervert's imagination.

But about the Tiara deal, don't worry; there are thousands of women who own Tiaras, just 99% of them are airheads who won them by saying "If I won this pageant I would cure orld hugner...oops, that says hunger." My sister won one when she was the Homecoming Queen in HS, but I hardly count her as the ditzy type. She's in med school up at UCD...so anyone checked into any hospitals in that area can hope that she isn't brain-dead.

ProMinx

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by molecularfire
Hmmm... Interesting thread. But, when it comes down to it, there is only one fact that I know of. Anyone (male or female) who can hang with me at my level will earn my respect. Anyone who can't, won't. I'm not a great athlete and there are women who can hold their own against me. They have earned my respect. If I had to stereotype them, I'd have to say that they really don't care all that much about how women do in perfessional sports. They don't care if they're physically superior or inferior. They don't need words of encouragement or a sense that they're doing well. The toughest people that I've played with (men or women) see me as someone in their way and deal with me to win the game. Anyways, perfessional sports isn't about sports anyways. It's about money. As for society... When people stop making excuses for things, they will begin to succeed. An excuse - no matter how good it may sound - is just that, an excuse.

Exactly what I was trying to say. As soon as people stop trying to portray women as at some pseudo-biological disadvantage, the better.

The only function I think pro sports play in societal interest level. Face it, how many of us grew up dreaming of being Michael Jordan or Mario Lemieux or Joe Montana? I think if you have women competing at elite levels, not just against women, but globally, you'd see a lot more women participating in, excited about, and interested in sports.

[Sillycon]

There is already a heightened increase in women's athletics. You don't need a novelty act such as integrating women with the men in professional sports to increase awareness. While it won't be in the same scale of the King vs. Riggs circus, there will be similarities when you attempt such a thing. As it were, there will be places in which integration makes sense such as race car driving. Sports which rely on physical tools in addition to skill should not be integrated...

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Sillycon
There is already a heightened increase in women's athletics. You don't need a novelty act such as integrating women with the men in professional sports to increase awareness. While it won't be in the same scale of the King vs. Riggs circus, there will be similarities when you attempt such a thing. As it were, there will be places in which integration makes sense such as race car driving. Sports which rely on physical tools in addition to skill should not be integrated...


Hmm, kind of like the novelty of having a black quarterback? I mean, they can't read defenses like a white quarterback, right? Integrate them into sports that have the physical requisites, but not those require skill and brainpower as well.

Obviously, it's a pretty silly statement, but one we're only now getting over. There was all sorts of "science" that claimed blacks were less intelligent and couldn't play "thinking man's" games or positions, like quarterback. Even today, black quarterbacks are simply presumed to be athletes before passers. Who's to say women won't be found to be physically equal to men in the future?

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by pennypinch
[QUOTE]Who's to say women won't be found to be physically equal to men in the future?

Um, you can cut into a male and female cadaver and see that they are not physically equal. Can't really do the same thing with a black man's and white man's brains to determine who's smarter. Not yet, anywawy.

[Sillycon]

Look at the specialized sports like Track & Field where people train for a specific gain. Any gain by a female will be followed by the same incremental gain by their male counterpart. Females will never catch up(unless they want to go the route of the East German women of the 70's and 80's...)

You cite Venus Williams' 120mph serve. Not too long ago, men could hardly attain those type of speeds. Now we're seeing 130-140mph serves by the men.

[Sillycon]

btw, bringing up the black quarterback analogy just doesn't work here. There ARE inherent differences between women and men...

[pennypinch]

Perhaps the black quarterback analogy may not apply here; it DOES make my point that sometimes, a perceived inability on the part of a group is attitudinal, both on the part of those excluding and those excluded. I'd bet you a lot of women don't believe they can compete with men, either. Yet no-one has been able to explain away the fact that a ton of elite athletes are not elite athletically. Sure, you have your Randy Moss's, but for the most part, these guys are nothing special. Is someone going to claim that a woman can't achieve John Stockton's level of athleticism or height?!?!

Furthermore, the fact that some of you guys admit that some men couldn't even dream of a 120mph serve a few years ago is evidence that women are capable of male achievements: they just haven't done it yet. They're just behind. Couldn't a quantum leap in attitudes towards female sports bring them up to where everyone else is?

[dre]

Originally posted by Sillycon
Other sports that don't rely on physical skills(racing cars for example) are the best bet for females to integrate with the males.



On behalf of all redneck racing fans I must respectfully disagree. Race car driving is extremely physical. Much like fighter pilots they routinely withstand several G's. A few weeks ago at Texas Motor Speedway the CART drivers were getting vertigo and blacking out during qualifying (at 240+ mph!!).

Now back to the topic...I can't think of a sport that isn't physcial. All sports, even pool and archery, take a certain amount of physical strength, endurance and coordination. With that in mind, women are not biologically designed to be physically superior and therefore will never surpass male athletes in sports.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by dre

Originally posted by Sillycon
Other sports that don't rely on physical skills(racing cars for example) are the best bet for females to integrate with the males.



On behalf of all redneck racing fans I must respectfully disagree. Race car driving is extremely physical. Much like fighter pilots they routinely withstand several G's. A few weeks ago at Texas Motor Speedway the CART drivers were getting vertigo and blacking out during qualifying (at 240+ mph!!).

Now back to the topic...I can't think of a sport that isn't physcial. All sports, even pool and archery, take a certain amount of physical strength, endurance and coordination. With that in mind, women are not biologically designed to be physically superior and therefore will never surpass male athletes in sports.


I'm sure you've seen that Audi commercial with the woman driver who won a rally championship. Please explain. I'd contend that rally racing stresses the body more than any other type of racing, save perhaps F1.

Furthermore, what I've been trying to say is that PHYSICAL SUPERIORITY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. Let me repeat that: PHYSICAL SUPERIORITY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. John Stockton. Wayne Gretzky. Guy LaFleur. Pedro Martinez. Doug Flutie. Barry Sanders. Jerry Rice. John Kruk. Bob Cousy. Cliff Ronning. Paul Kariya. Dave Meggett. Phil Mickelson. Gabrial London (of the St. Louis Rams). Tony Gwynn. Phil Niekro. That's what I can think of in 5 minutes.

[EDIT] Gabrial London? Who the hell is that? I meant London Fletcher. Weird, 'cuz Gabrial London was a guy I went to college with. Just some guy, you know, like Zaphod Breeblebrox.

[Edited by pennypinch on 07-09-2001 at 11:40 PM]

[eSDee]

Originally posted by dre

Originally posted by Sillycon
Other sports that don't rely on physical skills(racing cars for example) are the best bet for females to integrate with the males.



On behalf of all redneck racing fans I must respectfully disagree. Race car driving is extremely physical. Much like fighter pilots they routinely withstand several G's. A few weeks ago at Texas Motor Speedway the CART drivers were getting vertigo and blacking out during qualifying (at 240+ mph!!).



It is well documented that women have shown better tolerance to higher G forces. I'm not sure what the reason is, possibly weight distribution but I have seen a couple of documentaries on the Discovery channel that have shown that women are less susceptible to blackout in that G Force chamber contraption.

[Sillycon]

Originally posted by pennypinch

Originally posted by dre

Originally posted by Sillycon
Other sports that don't rely on physical skills(racing cars for example) are the best bet for females to integrate with the males.



On behalf of all redneck racing fans I must respectfully disagree. Race car driving is extremely physical. Much like fighter pilots they routinely withstand several G's. A few weeks ago at Texas Motor Speedway the CART drivers were getting vertigo and blacking out during qualifying (at 240+ mph!!).

Now back to the topic...I can't think of a sport that isn't physcial. All sports, even pool and archery, take a certain amount of physical strength, endurance and coordination. With that in mind, women are not biologically designed to be physically superior and therefore will never surpass male athletes in sports.


I'm sure you've seen that Audi commercial with the woman driver who won a rally championship. Please explain. I'd contend that rally racing stresses the body more than any other type of racing, save perhaps F1.

Furthermore, what I've been trying to say is that PHYSICAL SUPERIORITY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. Let me repeat that: PHYSICAL SUPERIORITY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. John Stockton. Wayne Gretzky. Guy LaFleur. Pedro Martinez. Doug Flutie. Barry Sanders. Jerry Rice. John Kruk. Bob Cousy. Cliff Ronning. Paul Kariya. Dave Meggett. Phil Mickelson. Gabrial London (of the St. Louis Rams). Tony Gwynn. Phil Niekro. That's what I can think of in 5 minutes.

Who's that female dragster? Shirley Muldooney or something like that? They have a better chance at that sport as opposed to the sports that rely on physical tools in addition to skill.

Let's see if I can refute the people you've mentioned..

First, let's rule out football and hockey. In those sports, there are *big fast* guys and it is violent as heck. Tell a female to avoid 6'2, 240-300lb guys who run a 4.4-4.8 Physicality is a factor in hockey as well.

Okay. John Kruk, Tony Gwynn, Phil Neikro. You might think females have a chance in baseball. After all, strength is not a prerequisite nor is speed, you'd think. So who knows? We might see a female who has great hand eye coordination when it comes to batting in the future. Or we might have some female who can throw hard. However, those would be sort've freaks of nature I would think. They would be the exception. Not the rule. Add to that, there is a huge pool of males to compete with that has similar(and likely better) skills before they can even get a sniff of professional competition.

Phil Mickelson could be a good choice in your argument. Golf is one sport that physical tools would not a huge factor in. However, it is not out of the picture. Compare the differences in distances of Par 3/4/5 holes between the LPGA and the PGA. Men can hit the ball farther. However, skill plays a huge factor in that sport as well so women might have a chance there. Now that I think about it, I recall one golf pro/commentator remarking how breasts could play a factor in a woman's golf swing(or putting?). There was no uproar over that so I'd imagine there was a grain of truth in that...

[Jihforce]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Y2J I dont think anyone thinkgs they should integrate the nba, and if they do, it wont matter, no wnba player is better than keith closs anyways [QUOTE]
Hey don't make fun of keith closs! He's my hero! NOT! Haahaa.

I think NHL could use some chicks...remember that one chick? Manon or something like that? She played golie for Tampa. She didn't do too bad I think. I've seen worst goalies in the NHL.

[Sillycon]

Yeah, it was some French female. Goalie is position in hockey that females have a shot at. Most hockey guys will tell you though they'd rather have goalies with larger frames(in addition to quick reflexes)...

[welfareloser]

okay, i've let you all rattle on and on with your "valuable" opinions *s******* ... here's how it REALLY is... :P

i don't think you can do all sports the same way. in some cases, it may be apropriate to be fully integrated. but in most cases, there are two different "talent" bell curves for men and women... in any sport that requires strength, size, and speed, the men are, in general, going to better. some of the women will be better than some of the men - ie, the back tail of the men's bell curve will overlap the front tail of the women's bell curve - but throwing them all in together will result in the pros being 95% men. that is what makes women's leagues appropriate.

i think that it is true that women often do worse simply because they believe that they are inferior, just as it has been proven that minorities do worse on standardized tests simply because someone reminded them that they were a minority. that is a problem, and there is no easy way to fix it. integrating all sports won't fix it, and fixing the problem won't make sports magically integratable.

as for nba vs wnba - the men and the women play differently. i don't think that either of the arguments i have heard - "the women suck" and "the women play a much more elegant game than the stupid brutish men" - are right. there is a different style of play in each of the leagues, and i find them both entertaining.

i think that if a woman is good enough to play a pro sport, they oughtta let her on the team, especially if there is no comparable women's league. occasionally, there is a woman who can smack a baseball out of the park or who can kick a football really well.


Originally posted by flux0
Some facts for your digestion:

Average amount of brain cells:
Men 22.8 Billion
Women 19.3 Billion

Car Accidents Per 100 Million Miles: (Men drive 2.5x as much as women)
Men 304.7
Women 506.3

Men have better hand-eye coordination also.
However women generally are better at precision hand-eye coordination, and men are better at speed h-e coordination.

All of these facts are wrong when talking about one individual, but when you start talking about society and a whole group of people. These facts must be taken into account.

[Edited by flux0 on 07-08-2001 at 03:41 PM]

here's another one for you:

the corpus callosum, the structure that joins the two halves of the brain, is damaged by exposure to testosterone during development. boy babies, floating in testosterone, have smaller, weaker ones. means the two halves of their brain don't communicate as well as women's. could partially account for the fact that men have difficulty dealing with emotion.

really, tho, all such "facts" must be taken with a HUGE grain of salt... any study that tries to draw any conclusions about gender is almost always badly skewed by the researcher's biases. so many of the studies done in the last century have been proven so wrong...

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Sillycon

Who's that female dragster? Shirley Muldooney or something like that? They have a better chance at that sport as opposed to the sports that rely on physical tools in addition to skill.

Let's see if I can refute the people you've mentioned..

First, let's rule out football and hockey. In those sports, there are *big fast* guys and it is violent as heck. Tell a female to avoid 6'2, 240-300lb guys who run a 4.4-4.8 Physicality is a factor in hockey as well.

Okay. John Kruk, Tony Gwynn, Phil Neikro. You might think females have a chance in baseball. After all, strength is not a prerequisite nor is speed, you'd think. So who knows? We might see a female who has great hand eye coordination when it comes to batting in the future. Or we might have some female who can throw hard. However, those would be sort've freaks of nature I would think. They would be the exception. Not the rule. Add to that, there is a huge pool of males to compete with that has similar(and likely better) skills before they can even get a sniff of professional competition.

Phil Mickelson could be a good choice in your argument. Golf is one sport that physical tools would not a huge factor in. However, it is not out of the picture. Compare the differences in distances of Par 3/4/5 holes between the LPGA and the PGA. Men can hit the ball farther. However, skill plays a huge factor in that sport as well so women might have a chance there. Now that I think about it, I recall one golf pro/commentator remarking how breasts could play a factor in a woman's golf swing(or putting?). There was no uproar over that so I'd imagine there was a grain of truth in that...


Just because there are some large and fast players in hockey, does not mean it's a large man's game, just as basketball is not the sole domain of seven footers. There are a whole host of smaller players that get by just fine. I believe the average size of an NHL'er nowadays, even in the sports science age in which we live, is a little under six feet, 190 pounds. Sure, there aren't many women that fit that bill, but remember, there're still lots of guys that run 5'9", 160-175. Like I said, Gretzky and Kariya are both little guys that do or did pretty well, thank you very much.

I'll say this for physical attributes: there is a baseline threshold here. And I don't think of a second women cannot get to that. I think the fact that you simply assume men will have a better skill set lays bare your bias that women are immediately going to be inferior.

What I've been trying to say for posts upon posts here is that it's not how physically talented you are, it's how good an athlete you are. So many people underestimate the mental requirements of sports. Barry Sanders, by your logic, should never have even made the league. Wayne Gretzky should have been blasted to oblivion in his first season. Mickelson (or any of the other short hitters on the tour) should be requalifying for cards every year.

It simply isn't true that athletic ability = achievement. Sure, if you're a 4'zippo midgit with three arms and one leg, you probably aren't going to get very far, but I'd wager most athletes, male or female, are within a standard deviation of each other physically. It's the mental and psychological training that's lacking in female athletes.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Sillycon
Yeah, it was some French female. Goalie is position in hockey that females have a shot at. Most hockey guys will tell you though they'd rather have goalies with larger frames(in addition to quick reflexes)...


Manon Rheume. She was hot, but horrible. Got lit up in her exhibition games. She was a novelty to get hockey on the front pages in Florida.

[Sillycon]

Originally posted by pennypinch

Just because there are some large and fast players in hockey, does not mean it's a large man's game, just as basketball is not the sole domain of seven footers. There are a whole host of smaller players that get by just fine. I believe the average size of an NHL'er nowadays, even in the sports science age in which we live, is a little under six feet, 190 pounds. Sure, there aren't many women that fit that bill, but remember, there're still lots of guys that run 5'9", 160-175. Like I said, Gretzky and Kariya are both little guys that do or did pretty well, thank you very much.

I'll say this for physical attributes: there is a baseline threshold here. And I don't think of a second women cannot get to that. I think the fact that you simply assume men will have a better skill set lays bare your bias that women are immediately going to be inferior.

What I've been trying to say for posts upon posts here is that it's not how physically talented you are, it's how good an athlete you are. So many people underestimate the mental requirements of sports. Barry Sanders, by your logic, should never have even made the league. Wayne Gretzky should have been blasted to oblivion in his first season. Mickelson (or any of the other short hitters on the tour) should be requalifying for cards every year.

It simply isn't true that athletic ability = achievement. Sure, if you're a 4'zippo midgit with three arms and one leg, you probably aren't going to get very far, but I'd wager most athletes, male or female, are within a standard deviation of each other physically. It's the mental and psychological training that's lacking in female athletes.

Barry Sanders DOES have physical tools whether you like to believe it or not. I'm not so much denigrating a female's ability to compete as you are in underestimating the male athlete as well as not understanding the sport of football/hockey and the role of physical tools that determine your chances to succeed in that sport. I still laugh at your email when you remarked,



"Jordan: sure, I'll give you that he was an amazing athlete...back in the
late 80's. By the time he was winning the last three championships, his
athletic ability had severely eroded, making him all that more spectacular.
Regardless, he isn't even the best example.


Even an out of shape MJ would whip every single WNBA player out there. Sure, he doesn't jump as high or is as quick during is prime. But y'know what? He still jumps higher than most(if not all) WNBA players. He's small in physical stature by NBA standards. But guess what? He's HUGE when you thrust him amongst the WNBA'ers. Unless we're breeding a bunch of Amazons and/or using the East German women techniques, you will have to look at one prevalent thing. Big person with skill will beat small person with skill. (You also mentioned John Stockton. The guy is small but he's not a big ol' stiff either. He IS quick and strong/physical despite his appearance...)

I forget if I mentioned this in previous replies but look at Track & Field. Men and Women enjoy the same specialized training in their respective fields. See any women surpassing their male counterparts? nope.... Unless we're going to sanction steroid treatments for women, the men will always have a higher ceiling...

[pennypinch]

An out of shape MJ can whip young bucks in the NBA. How do you explain that, even though I'd say the majority possess greater physical prowess. If so much is dependant on physical ability, then how is it possible that MJ can still get it done?

Same with Sanders. I've never said he doesn't have physical ability. But we both know there are and were scores of players who are much bigger, quicker, faster, stronger that don't deserve to dream of what Barry did. Why aren't those guys far better than him?

I think it's you that misunderstands hockey. Don't try and say you understand hockey better than a Canadian! :) Gretzky was able to succeed because he could avoid that contact. Same with all the other small players in the league. Their skill allows them to play despite their lack of size.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by pennypinch

Originally posted by Sillycon
Yeah, it was some French female. Goalie is position in hockey that females have a shot at. Most hockey guys will tell you though they'd rather have goalies with larger frames(in addition to quick reflexes)...


Manon Rheume. She was hot, but horrible. Got lit up in her exhibition games. She was a novelty to get hockey on the front pages in Florida.

She was alright, there are plenty of shittier goalies that still play in the NHL.
And yes, she was hot. heehee.

[icarus]

Originally posted by Jihforce

Originally posted by pennypinch


Originally posted by Sillycon

Yeah, it was some French female. Goalie is position in hockey that females have a shot at. Most hockey guys will tell you though they'd rather have goalies with larger frames(in addition to quick reflexes)...





Manon Rheume. She was hot, but horrible. Got lit up in her exhibition games. She was a novelty to get hockey on the front pages in Florida.



She was alright, there are plenty of shittier goalies that still play in the NHL.

And yes, she was hot. heehee.

No she wasn't alright. She was abysmal. There are no starting goalies in the league as bad as her. True, maybe she just had a bad game or ten, but whatever the case was, she was terrible.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Jihforce

Originally posted by pennypinch

Originally posted by Sillycon
Yeah, it was some French female. Goalie is position in hockey that females have a shot at. Most hockey guys will tell you though they'd rather have goalies with larger frames(in addition to quick reflexes)...


Manon Rheume. She was hot, but horrible. Got lit up in her exhibition games. She was a novelty to get hockey on the front pages in Florida.

She was alright, there are plenty of shittier goalies that still play in the NHL.

No way. Only goalie I've seen that was worse was maybe Red Light Racicot. Maybe Steve Weakes. Probably not.

[Sillycon]

Originally posted by pennypinch
An out of shape MJ can whip young bucks in the NBA. How do you explain that, even though I'd say the majority possess greater physical prowess. If so much is dependant on physical ability, then how is it possible that MJ can still get it done?

Same with Sanders. I've never said he doesn't have physical ability. But we both know there are and were scores of players who are much bigger, quicker, faster, stronger that don't deserve to dream of what Barry did. Why aren't those guys far better than him?

I think it's you that misunderstands hockey. Don't try and say you understand hockey better than a Canadian! :) Gretzky was able to succeed because he could avoid that contact. Same with all the other small players in the league. Their skill allows them to play despite their lack of size.

You're the one saying that his physical skills are non-existent. I'm saying even on the decline, he still possesses very good physical ability in addition to his skill.

Sander has one thing going for him. He is THE quickest, jukiest guy out there. Noone has that ability.

Gretsky has some athletic ability. He also benefited by playing alongside great players. Plus, I venture to say the level of competition and type of players was lower than it is now. Nowadays, they grow'em bigger, stronger, and faster. You mentioned Paul Kariya and his small size. Well, where is that female that possesses the speed of Kariya along with shooting ability?

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Sillycon

Originally posted by pennypinch
An out of shape MJ can whip young bucks in the NBA. How do you explain that, even though I'd say the majority possess greater physical prowess. If so much is dependant on physical ability, then how is it possible that MJ can still get it done?

Same with Sanders. I've never said he doesn't have physical ability. But we both know there are and were scores of players who are much bigger, quicker, faster, stronger that don't deserve to dream of what Barry did. Why aren't those guys far better than him?

I think it's you that misunderstands hockey. Don't try and say you understand hockey better than a Canadian! :) Gretzky was able to succeed because he could avoid that contact. Same with all the other small players in the league. Their skill allows them to play despite their lack of size.

You're the one saying that his physical skills are non-existent. I'm saying even on the decline, he still possesses very good physical ability in addition to his skill.

Sander has one thing going for him. He is THE quickest, jukiest guy out there. Noone has that ability.

Gretsky has some athletic ability. He also benefited by playing alongside great players. Plus, I venture to say the level of competition and type of players was lower than it is now. Nowadays, they grow'em bigger, stronger, and faster. You mentioned Paul Kariya and his small size. Well, where is that female that possesses the speed of Kariya along with shooting ability?


Wrong on all three.

I never said Jordan lacked any athletic ability. I said his athleticism had eroded from where he was in the late 80's, considerably so. Yet I think he was a far better player later in his career than earlier.

Barry Sanders was NOT the quickest back in the league. There were all sorts of less heralded, much quicker backs. Yet he was able to turn his above average quickness into special statistics and achievements? How? Balance, intelligence, vision, and creativity. You're going to tell me only men can possess those qualities? Sure, I don't think women will ever make the NFL, but those qualities are important in ANY sport.

Gretzky, I'd say, probably played in a time when players were, on average, BETTER than they are today. Hockey fans all over lament the state of the average NHL'er today. There are so many teams, and so many roster spots, that almost any palooka who can tie skate laces makes the league. Obviously, that's an exagerration, but I'd say players were just as good, if not better, in Gretzky's day as they are now. They are certainly just as big today as they were in 93-94, when he won his last scoring championship. Sure, the average size has increased, but I doubt that they're too much faster incrementally.

If you don't want to talk about Kariya, then talk about Cliff Ronning. He's 5'6", and has played in the league for years. He led Nashville in scoring as recently as a few years ago, at age 37 (?). He's not quick, and he doesn't have a dominating shot.

[Sillycon]

Originally posted by pennypinch


Wrong on all three.

I never said Jordan lacked any athletic ability. I said his athleticism had eroded from where he was in the late 80's, considerably so. Yet I think he was a far better player later in his career than earlier.

Barry Sanders was NOT the quickest back in the league. There were all sorts of less heralded, much quicker backs. Yet he was able to turn his above average quickness into special statistics and achievements? How? Balance, intelligence, vision, and creativity. You're going to tell me only men can possess those qualities? Sure, I don't think women will ever make the NFL, but those qualities are important in ANY sport.

Gretzky, I'd say, probably played in a time when players were, on average, BETTER than they are today. Hockey fans all over lament the state of the average NHL'er today. There are so many teams, and so many roster spots, that almost any palooka who can tie skate laces makes the league. Obviously, that's an exagerration, but I'd say players were just as good, if not better, in Gretzky's day as they are now. They are certainly just as big today as they were in 93-94, when he won his last scoring championship. Sure, the average size has increased, but I doubt that they're too much faster incrementally.

If you don't want to talk about Kariya, then talk about Cliff Ronning. He's 5'6", and has played in the league for years. He led Nashville in scoring as recently as a few years ago, at age 37 (?). He's not quick, and he doesn't have a dominating shot.

>I never said Jordan lacked any athletic ability. I said >his athleticism had eroded from where he was in the late >80's, considerably so. Yet I think he was a far better >player later in his career than earlier.

And you base this on what?

>Barry Sanders was NOT the quickest back in the league. >There were all sorts of less heralded, much quicker >backs. Yet he was able to turn his above average >quickness into special statistics and achievements? How? >Balance, intelligence, vision, and creativity. You're >going to tell me only men can possess those qualities? >Sure, I don't think women will ever make the NFL, but >those qualities are important in ANY sport.

Name those backs who were QUICKER than Sanders. There's a difference between being quick and being fast. There are faster backs but none are quicker than Barry Sanders. He had terrific stop and go moves which lends more to physical tools rather than skill.

As for hockey, I'll admit to not having that much knowledge of the sport besides from watching the Islanders back in their dynasty days. But from what I can recall, the level of competition has increased over time. Both athleticism AND skill has increased(more notably the physical aspect of the players) over time. You contradict yourself with "They are certainly just as big today as they were in 93-94, when he won his last scoring championship. Sure, the average size has increased" comment. People ARE getting bigger and have retained the speed. Better training techniques lends to better conditioning and better bursts of speed.

I don't have a clue on what type of player Ronning is but if you were to stick him amongst the top female hockey players, I would say he would do very well....