Should men and women compete against each other in athletics?
Replies
-
cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »[quote="Sarauk2sf;31287699
...its politically correct to talk about how women are great athletes but they are not if you speak your mind?
I am assuming you are only referring to middle distance running with your post. There are many many sports where women will/can 'beat' 15 and 16 year old boys, let alone ones limited to a state v the best women in the country.
There are great women athletes but they are physically not as big, strong or fast as men. It is all relative. A great boys high school team is not going to be able to compete with an NBA team and the same with women at the top level. They will only be able to compete with men at about the mid high school level. There are no sports where women will have an advantage.0 -
I think there is something to be said for a skilled sport versus and a less skilled sport.
golf- more skill- less physical
- I suspect a woman could play more evenly.
3 day eventing- or any of the equine sports
- women compete more equally.
Sports that require more physical interaction- no. They won't and cant' compete at high levels.
Not to say they can't do the things being asked of them- but the reality is a trained man men will always be harder stronger faster than a trained woman- unless skill is the leading factor.
But hell- even with motorcycle racing- it's lead by men- very skill driven- few women can keep up- it's a physical sport- but it's skill driven- and you just don't see women competing the same way.
Harsh reality- but there it is.
Golf not so much. women tee of from the women's tees. The LPGA driving medalist averaged 275 yards but to find a man that averaged 275 yards you have to go down around the 200th. It is all relative.
0 -
cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »
...its politically correct to talk about how women are great athletes but they are not if you speak your mind?
I am assuming you are only referring to middle distance running with your post. There are many many sports where women will/can 'beat' 15 and 16 year old boys, let alone ones limited to a state v the best women in the country.
There are great women athletes but they are physically not as big, strong or fast as men. It is all relative. A great boys high school team is not going to be able to compete with an NBA team and the same with women at the top level. They will only be able to compete with men at about the mid high school level. There are no sports where women will have an advantage.
Elite level women will ALWAYS lose to 15 - 16 year old non elite level boys in all sports? That is effectively what you were saying. Are you no longer saying that?
Also, your comment is not in line with your prior comment re what PC peeps would say.
Edited to fix messed up quotes (or at least try to).0 -
Put a female in the NBA or NFL, and it'll be a bloodbath.
At other sports it makes more sense.
At mind sports I don't see why not even though most people at either extreme of the bell curve intellectually will be men. That's consistent with all the social data we see:
More men achieve highly.....start huge businesses and create wealth in immense amounts, but more men are also in prison, unemployed not by choice, violent offenders, drug abusers, etc. etc.0 -
The difference between men and women in sport is exactly the same as all natural athletes vs steroid using athletes. The vast difference in testosterone levels is absolutely not fair in either instance.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
The difference between men and women in sport is exactly the same as all natural athletes vs steroid using athletes. The vast difference in testosterone levels is absolutely not fair in either instance.
Exactly.
In short:
Testosterone---> Effects on muscle myfiber size
Also, testosterone ----> erythropoiesis ---> much higher red blood cell concentration in blood.
0 -
EDIT since I apparently quoted the wrong post...
Serena has played co-ed matches and gotten whooped. I don't recall what ranking the male player was, but Serena and Venus both played matches against a man and got whooped...
I just looked it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)
A fourth event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[20] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams, aged 17 and 16 respectively, had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked below 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park.[21] Braasch first took on Venus and beat her 6–2. He then played Serena and won 6–1.[22] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun."[23]
Granted, that was 15+ years ago, but the Williams sisters were at the top of Women's tennis at the time as well, and got beat handily by a 200 something ranked man.
Regarding golf, A couple of my colleagues prefer watching women's golf to men's because the game the pro women play is much more similar to their own, club level amateur play where it is much more difficult to relate to the male pros who routinely hit monster drives giving them short approaches into the green that aren't realistic for most players.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »Women and men are not the same. PC talks about how women are great atheletes but women...no correction the best women are only as good as good 9th grade boys. I mean look at women's world track and field records. This is the best performance of all time by a woman and in a large state like Texas or Florida you find these times run regularly by the best 9th grade boys. 800 meters1:50, high jump 6'10" and on and on.
9th grade? Is that like 14yo?
PC?
If the women's world record holder in the 800 meters ran in the Texas state 5A boys championship and ran her world record time she would have gotten third in 2014. And that was not a world record run for these boys. It was fast but not even world class for boys.
Im sorry. I am talkng about 15 or 16 year old boys. 5A refers to the size of the schools in Texas. PC means politically correct. That is when you don't speak your mind so that you don't offend someone.
I agree in this case. The elite female track athletes would not be competitive against the better club male athletes. Similarly, acliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »
...its politically correct to talk about how women are great athletes but they are not if you speak your mind?
I am assuming you are only referring to middle distance running with your post. There are many many sports where women will/can 'beat' 15 and 16 year old boys, let alone ones limited to a state v the best women in the country.
There are great women athletes but they are physically not as big, strong or fast as men. It is all relative. A great boys high school team is not going to be able to compete with an NBA team and the same with women at the top level. They will only be able to compete with men at about the mid high school level. There are no sports where women will have an advantage.
Elite level women will ALWAYS lose to 15 - 16 year old non elite level boys in all sports? That is effectively what you were saying. Are you no longer saying that?
Also, your comment is not in line with your prior comment re what PC peeps would say.
Edited to fix messed up quotes (or at least try to).
No, I think what he's saying is that the elite female track and field athletes would not be competitive in a state boys championship. This is true, because biology doesn't care about sexual politics.
He did not make that clear in his 'PC' comment/blanket statement - I asked a couple of times and he did not clarify. I have no idea about track and field, so could not comment. I know it is not the case in all sports - even physical ones. For example, I know of a couple of elite level female powerlifters who have better lifts than 15 - 16 boys who compete at the state level (and in fact in this case I am actually comparing to that age at the same elite level).
Blanket statements are usually wrong.
ETA: to make it clear, I do not think women are in any way competitive against men (looking at the same standard) in most sports. I was just trying to clarify that whether the poster meant in all sports or not (his posts were not clear on a number of points) - a blanket statement that elite level women in general are not competitive at a state level against 15 year old boys is not correct.0 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »dougpconnell219 wrote: »In most sports, men just have an insurmountable size advantage.
All other things being equal, size usually wins.
Running? Every stride a taller male takes eats up more ground. A shorter woman has to take x number more strides to cover the she ground.
Martial arts? The larger man has a reach advantage, and is probably more able to throw his lighter female opponent than vice versa.
There are probably some sports where it could work though. Tennis? Golf?
Tennis no. Golf no. Men in tennis hit harder and are quicker. In golf, men hit the ball father and can get to the green sooner.
Actually seeded female tennis serves for the last season were pretty much on a par speed wise with men. It's the sport with the biggest overlap in performance between genders.0 -
Previous replies have already alluded to this, but it's worth emphasizing.
At the elite/pro level, men have an advantage in almost every sport.
At the amateur level, all bets are off. There are women in my multisports club who are as fast swimming as any of the men. Running and Tris, there are women who are among the top 5 in our group. So, sure, among us weekend warriors, training and skill have a huge impact and any given woman can be faster than any given man.
But when you're talking about the top tier athletes, who are ALL at the peak of training and skill, then being a guy and having more testosterone is an advantage that usually can't be overcome.
One article I read on this subject noted that the advantage of being male is relatively less strong for endurance sports, and the longer distance the event is, the more females start to catch up. But still, even in Ironman, the women's times are not equal to men's. Chrissie Wellington is a phenomenon and perhaps the greatest triathlete ever, and she's posted some splits that a lot of guys would love to have. I remember in one event, her run time was the best overall - male or female. But still her overall time would not have put her on the men's podium.
Also, it's totally random to talk about different age groups. There are ages where young women are taller than their male peers. Adolescent boys haven't had the years of testosterone boosting their training performance. Again, if you're talking about people at different stages of maturity, all bets are off.
I don't have any moral objection to women competing against men. If they want to try, go for it. But it's not a level playing field and wins will be rare at the elite level.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »Women and men are not the same. PC talks about how women are great atheletes but women...no correction the best women are only as good as good 9th grade boys. I mean look at women's world track and field records. This is the best performance of all time by a woman and in a large state like Texas or Florida you find these times run regularly by the best 9th grade boys. 800 meters1:50, high jump 6'10" and on and on.
9th grade? Is that like 14yo?
PC?
If the women's world record holder in the 800 meters ran in the Texas state 5A boys championship and ran her world record time she would have gotten third in 2014. And that was not a world record run for these boys. It was fast but not even world class for boys.
Im sorry. I am talkng about 15 or 16 year old boys. 5A refers to the size of the schools in Texas. PC means politically correct. That is when you don't speak your mind so that you don't offend someone.
I agree in this case. The elite female track athletes would not be competitive against the better club male athletes. Similarly, acliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »
...its politically correct to talk about how women are great athletes but they are not if you speak your mind?
I am assuming you are only referring to middle distance running with your post. There are many many sports where women will/can 'beat' 15 and 16 year old boys, let alone ones limited to a state v the best women in the country.
There are great women athletes but they are physically not as big, strong or fast as men. It is all relative. A great boys high school team is not going to be able to compete with an NBA team and the same with women at the top level. They will only be able to compete with men at about the mid high school level. There are no sports where women will have an advantage.
Elite level women will ALWAYS lose to 15 - 16 year old non elite level boys in all sports? That is effectively what you were saying. Are you no longer saying that?
Also, your comment is not in line with your prior comment re what PC peeps would say.
Edited to fix messed up quotes (or at least try to).
No, I think what he's saying is that the elite female track and field athletes would not be competitive in a state boys championship. This is true, because biology doesn't care about sexual politics.
He did not make that clear in his 'PC' comment/blanket statement - I asked a couple of times and he did not clarify. I have no idea about track and field, so could not comment. I know it is not the case in all sports - even physical ones. For example, I know of a couple of elite level female powerlifters who have better lifts than 15 - 16 boys who compete at the state level (and in fact in this case I am actually comparing to that age at the same elite level).
Blanket statements are usually wrong.
ETA: to make it clear, I do not think women are in any way competitive against men (looking at the same standard) in most sports. I was just trying to clarify that whether the poster meant in all sports or not (his posts were not clear on a number of points) - a blanket statement that elite level women in general are not competitive at a state level against 15 year old boys is not correct.
I didn't make it clear what I meant by politically correct because I was trying to be politically correct. Let me be clear. In any sport that requires speed or strenth women can in no way ever compete successfully aganinst men. They will equal out at the same level as 9th grade boys in some cases but in no caases will they be able to compete with any good boy atheletes over 15 or 16 years of age.
0 -
Depends on the sport. Contact? Heck no.0
-
cliffodom1 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »Women and men are not the same. PC talks about how women are great atheletes but women...no correction the best women are only as good as good 9th grade boys. I mean look at women's world track and field records. This is the best performance of all time by a woman and in a large state like Texas or Florida you find these times run regularly by the best 9th grade boys. 800 meters1:50, high jump 6'10" and on and on.
9th grade? Is that like 14yo?
PC?
If the women's world record holder in the 800 meters ran in the Texas state 5A boys championship and ran her world record time she would have gotten third in 2014. And that was not a world record run for these boys. It was fast but not even world class for boys.
Im sorry. I am talkng about 15 or 16 year old boys. 5A refers to the size of the schools in Texas. PC means politically correct. That is when you don't speak your mind so that you don't offend someone.
I agree in this case. The elite female track athletes would not be competitive against the better club male athletes. Similarly, acliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »
...its politically correct to talk about how women are great athletes but they are not if you speak your mind?
I am assuming you are only referring to middle distance running with your post. There are many many sports where women will/can 'beat' 15 and 16 year old boys, let alone ones limited to a state v the best women in the country.
There are great women athletes but they are physically not as big, strong or fast as men. It is all relative. A great boys high school team is not going to be able to compete with an NBA team and the same with women at the top level. They will only be able to compete with men at about the mid high school level. There are no sports where women will have an advantage.
Elite level women will ALWAYS lose to 15 - 16 year old non elite level boys in all sports? That is effectively what you were saying. Are you no longer saying that?
Also, your comment is not in line with your prior comment re what PC peeps would say.
Edited to fix messed up quotes (or at least try to).
No, I think what he's saying is that the elite female track and field athletes would not be competitive in a state boys championship. This is true, because biology doesn't care about sexual politics.
He did not make that clear in his 'PC' comment/blanket statement - I asked a couple of times and he did not clarify. I have no idea about track and field, so could not comment. I know it is not the case in all sports - even physical ones. For example, I know of a couple of elite level female powerlifters who have better lifts than 15 - 16 boys who compete at the state level (and in fact in this case I am actually comparing to that age at the same elite level).
Blanket statements are usually wrong.
ETA: to make it clear, I do not think women are in any way competitive against men (looking at the same standard) in most sports. I was just trying to clarify that whether the poster meant in all sports or not (his posts were not clear on a number of points) - a blanket statement that elite level women in general are not competitive at a state level against 15 year old boys is not correct.
I didn't make it clear what I meant by politically correct because I was trying to be politically correct. Let me be clear. In any sport that requires speed or strenth women can in no way ever compete successfully aganinst men. They will equal out at the same level as 9th grade boys in some cases but in no caases will they be able to compete with any good boy atheletes over 15 or 16 years of age.
Most likely true against men. Not true against 15 or 16 year olds all the time in all strength based sports (I mentioned an example where it is not true). No idea about other speed/strength based sports.
What is politically incorrect about saying women will not be competitive against men in physical sports? Its a valid statement that has been made all through this thread. However, based on your initial post, I thought you were trying to be politically correct (i,e, not meaning it based on your statement) when saying that women can be great athletes?
ETA: Stats showing your blanket statements are incorrect - and in a strength based sport - powerlifting:
The age divisions are split so I am showing the one above the ages you mentioned and the one below , but here are the American USAPL records at 148lb weigh class:
Teen 14 – 15 (Male)
Squat: 314lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 402.25lb
Total: 904lb
Teen 16 – 17 (Male)
Squat: 429.75lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 429.75lb
Total: 1036lb
Female RAW American Records at 148lb
Squat: 410lb
Bench: 308.5lb
Deads: 529lb
Total: 1,181.5lb
So, even comparing an elite female to an elite level 16/17 year old (not just 'good' 15 year olds, the female has better totals…and check out the difference in that deadlift – even the bench is comparable which is something considering the greater disparity with upper body strength.
0 -
If the woman can lift as much, is the same height, and matches all other aspects of the men that are relevant and key to winning a particular sport, then why not? The problem is, at the elite <1% level, that's typically not the case. However, if a unique woman does make it to these statistical levels, then she should be allowed to compete against men. The question is... Will she want to?
0 -
If the woman can lift as much, is the same height, and matches all other aspects of the men that are relevant and key to winning a particular sport, then why not? The problem is, at the elite <1% level, that's typically not the case. However, if a unique woman does make it to these statistical levels, then she should be allowed to compete against men. The question is... Will she want to?
As much as I am arguing about the 'good' 15/16 year comment, there is no female who can compete against men in the same weight class in an open age group, and if there ever was, I would be asking if she pees standing up.0 -
myfelinepal wrote: »Because at the physical pinnacle, men would beat women every time in most sports. There's records to prove it and everything. For instance, Flo Jo's world record is almost a second slower than Usain Bolt's.
That makes her faster than 99% of men.
Which is fine if an elite level female competes against non elite level men. But unless you handicap the field, its just not comparable.
Sure. I wasn't suggesting otherwise, was just complimenting her on her physical prowess.
:drinker:
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
herrspoons wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »Women and men are not the same. PC talks about how women are great atheletes but women...no correction the best women are only as good as good 9th grade boys. I mean look at women's world track and field records. This is the best performance of all time by a woman and in a large state like Texas or Florida you find these times run regularly by the best 9th grade boys. 800 meters1:50, high jump 6'10" and on and on.
9th grade? Is that like 14yo?
PC?
If the women's world record holder in the 800 meters ran in the Texas state 5A boys championship and ran her world record time she would have gotten third in 2014. And that was not a world record run for these boys. It was fast but not even world class for boys.
Im sorry. I am talkng about 15 or 16 year old boys. 5A refers to the size of the schools in Texas. PC means politically correct. That is when you don't speak your mind so that you don't offend someone.
I agree in this case. The elite female track athletes would not be competitive against the better club male athletes. Similarly, acliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »
...its politically correct to talk about how women are great athletes but they are not if you speak your mind?
I am assuming you are only referring to middle distance running with your post. There are many many sports where women will/can 'beat' 15 and 16 year old boys, let alone ones limited to a state v the best women in the country.
There are great women athletes but they are physically not as big, strong or fast as men. It is all relative. A great boys high school team is not going to be able to compete with an NBA team and the same with women at the top level. They will only be able to compete with men at about the mid high school level. There are no sports where women will have an advantage.
Elite level women will ALWAYS lose to 15 - 16 year old non elite level boys in all sports? That is effectively what you were saying. Are you no longer saying that?
Also, your comment is not in line with your prior comment re what PC peeps would say.
Edited to fix messed up quotes (or at least try to).
No, I think what he's saying is that the elite female track and field athletes would not be competitive in a state boys championship. This is true, because biology doesn't care about sexual politics.
He did not make that clear in his 'PC' comment/blanket statement - I asked a couple of times and he did not clarify. I have no idea about track and field, so could not comment. I know it is not the case in all sports - even physical ones. For example, I know of a couple of elite level female powerlifters who have better lifts than 15 - 16 boys who compete at the state level (and in fact in this case I am actually comparing to that age at the same elite level).
Blanket statements are usually wrong.
ETA: to make it clear, I do not think women are in any way competitive against men (looking at the same standard) in most sports. I was just trying to clarify that whether the poster meant in all sports or not (his posts were not clear on a number of points) - a blanket statement that elite level women in general are not competitive at a state level against 15 year old boys is not correct.
I didn't make it clear what I meant by politically correct because I was trying to be politically correct. Let me be clear. In any sport that requires speed or strenth women can in no way ever compete successfully aganinst men. They will equal out at the same level as 9th grade boys in some cases but in no caases will they be able to compete with any good boy atheletes over 15 or 16 years of age.
Most likely true against men. Not true against 15 or 16 year olds all the time in all strength based sports (I mentioned an example where it is not true). No idea about other speed/strength based sports.
What is politically incorrect about saying women will not be competitive against men in physical sports? Its a valid statement that has been made all through this thread. However, based on your initial post, I thought you were trying to be politically correct (i,e, not meaning it based on your statement) when saying that women can be great athletes?
ETA: Stats showing your blanket statements are incorrect - and in a strength based sport - powerlifting:
The age divisions are split so I am showing the one above the ages you mentioned and the one below , but here are the American USAPL records at 148lb weigh class:
Teen 14 – 15 (Male)
Squat: 314lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 402.25lb
Total: 904lb
Teen 16 – 17 (Male)
Squat: 429.75lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 429.75lb
Total: 1036lb
Female RAW American Records at 148lb
Squat: 410lb
Bench: 308.5lb
Deads: 529lb
Total: 1,181.5lb
So, even comparing an elite female to an elite level 16/17 year old (not just 'good' 15 year olds, the female has better totals…and check out the difference in that deadlift – even the bench is comparable which is something considering the greater disparity with upper body strength.
The stats don't really. All they show is that boys and women of the same weight have comparable stats up to age group level. However, the women's class tops out at bodyweight 90kg+, the men's at 125kg+, as men are generally bigger and stronger.
The Open Women's total at the maximum weight class of 90kg+ is 1,532 pounds. This is better than the Teen 1 (14-15) at 125kg+ by 6 pounds, but substantially less than Teen 2 (16-17) at that weight, as that record is 2000.5 pounds - nearly 500 pounds heavier.
So a competitive 16-17 year old high school PL can comfortably outlift any female elite powerlifter. Because biology.
Yes, and that was the point I was making - and the women have a better total and a way better deadlift than even the older age group. You have weight classes for a reason and last time I looked, they were used in meets and a 148lb person - whether male or female, does not compete in an open weight class and both would get slaughtered in a comp if it were open - it's kind of a silly argument imo and I am not even sure the poster was even implying that sports that have weight classes had no consideration in his assertion.
Also, his point was 'good' 15 - 16 year old boys v elite women [the open weight class woman total > Texas state American record for 16 - 17 year old boy record - and I would put a state record holder above the standard given of 'good']
ETA: not arguing that open weight class 17 year olds boy have better lifts than open weight class women (as they are higher) - but what records are you using?
0 -
cliffodom1 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »Women and men are not the same. PC talks about how women are great atheletes but women...no correction the best women are only as good as good 9th grade boys. I mean look at women's world track and field records. This is the best performance of all time by a woman and in a large state like Texas or Florida you find these times run regularly by the best 9th grade boys. 800 meters1:50, high jump 6'10" and on and on.
9th grade? Is that like 14yo?
PC?
If the women's world record holder in the 800 meters ran in the Texas state 5A boys championship and ran her world record time she would have gotten third in 2014. And that was not a world record run for these boys. It was fast but not even world class for boys.
Im sorry. I am talkng about 15 or 16 year old boys. 5A refers to the size of the schools in Texas. PC means politically correct. That is when you don't speak your mind so that you don't offend someone.
I agree in this case. The elite female track athletes would not be competitive against the better club male athletes. Similarly, acliffodom1 wrote: »cliffodom1 wrote: »
...its politically correct to talk about how women are great athletes but they are not if you speak your mind?
I am assuming you are only referring to middle distance running with your post. There are many many sports where women will/can 'beat' 15 and 16 year old boys, let alone ones limited to a state v the best women in the country.
There are great women athletes but they are physically not as big, strong or fast as men. It is all relative. A great boys high school team is not going to be able to compete with an NBA team and the same with women at the top level. They will only be able to compete with men at about the mid high school level. There are no sports where women will have an advantage.
Elite level women will ALWAYS lose to 15 - 16 year old non elite level boys in all sports? That is effectively what you were saying. Are you no longer saying that?
Also, your comment is not in line with your prior comment re what PC peeps would say.
Edited to fix messed up quotes (or at least try to).
No, I think what he's saying is that the elite female track and field athletes would not be competitive in a state boys championship. This is true, because biology doesn't care about sexual politics.
He did not make that clear in his 'PC' comment/blanket statement - I asked a couple of times and he did not clarify. I have no idea about track and field, so could not comment. I know it is not the case in all sports - even physical ones. For example, I know of a couple of elite level female powerlifters who have better lifts than 15 - 16 boys who compete at the state level (and in fact in this case I am actually comparing to that age at the same elite level).
Blanket statements are usually wrong.
ETA: to make it clear, I do not think women are in any way competitive against men (looking at the same standard) in most sports. I was just trying to clarify that whether the poster meant in all sports or not (his posts were not clear on a number of points) - a blanket statement that elite level women in general are not competitive at a state level against 15 year old boys is not correct.
I didn't make it clear what I meant by politically correct because I was trying to be politically correct. Let me be clear. In any sport that requires speed or strenth women can in no way ever compete successfully aganinst men. They will equal out at the same level as 9th grade boys in some cases but in no caases will they be able to compete with any good boy atheletes over 15 or 16 years of age.
Do you even lift?
I'm sorry, was that not clear? Let me be clear. You're weak.0 -
This thread makes me sad.0
-
[quote="cliffodom1;31334547
ETA: Stats showing your blanket statements are incorrect - and in a strength based sport - powerlifting:
The age divisions are split so I am showing the one above the ages you mentioned and the one below , but here are the American USAPL records at 148lb weigh class:
Teen 14 – 15 (Male)
Squat: 314lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 402.25lb
Total: 904lb
Teen 16 – 17 (Male)
Squat: 429.75lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 429.75lb
Total: 1036lb
Female RAW American Records at 148lb
Squat: 410lb
Bench: 308.5lb
Deads: 529lb
Total: 1,181.5lb
So, even comparing an elite female to an elite level 16/17 year old (not just 'good' 15 year olds, the female has better totals…and check out the difference in that deadlift – even the bench is comparable which is something considering the greater disparity with upper body strength.
We actually agree on this. You are comparing the top tier women to 15-16 year old boys. That is exactly my point. People peak out athletically at about 27-33 years of age. Men have their senior year of high school 4 years of college and then 2 or 3 additional years to peak. Women are still around high school boys in strength and speed.0 -
cliffodom1 wrote: »[quote="cliffodom1;31334547
ETA: Stats showing your blanket statements are incorrect - and in a strength based sport - powerlifting:
The age divisions are split so I am showing the one above the ages you mentioned and the one below , but here are the American USAPL records at 148lb weigh class:
Teen 14 – 15 (Male)
Squat: 314lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 402.25lb
Total: 904lb
Teen 16 – 17 (Male)
Squat: 429.75lb
Bench: 314lb
Dead: 429.75lb
Total: 1036lb
Female RAW American Records at 148lb
Squat: 410lb
Bench: 308.5lb
Deads: 529lb
Total: 1,181.5lb
So, even comparing an elite female to an elite level 16/17 year old (not just 'good' 15 year olds, the female has better totals…and check out the difference in that deadlift – even the bench is comparable which is something considering the greater disparity with upper body strength.
We actually agree on this. You are comparing the top tier women to 15-16 year old boys. That is exactly my point. People peak out athletically at about 27-33 years of age. Men have their senior year of high school 4 years of college and then 2 or 3 additional years to peak. Women are still around high school boys in strength and speed.
1181.5/1036...14%...
0 -
This question is analagous to the debate between weight classes and age groups and open weight class, no age groups, etc. It all depends on what you want. If the particular sport has enough men and women that can be competitive in an "open" format, then sure, why not. But if its a sport where men (or women) are going to dominate due to the nature of it, then divisions make sense. Having an exceptional woman that can compete with men isn't enough. The circumstances should be that there is a threat of competition regardless of sex.0
-
You can talk about size and strength all you want, but there are other differences as well. For instance, in golf for all the emphasis on monster drives you'll find the average male pro to be FAR superior to the average female pro on and around the greens. And that is despite the fact than on an average tour setup, the women's setup will be much easier than the men's. Men are better in the short game and putting where strength really isn't a factor at all. Men have better hand/eye coordination than women. You even see differences in things like the shooting sports.
0 -
Lumpy52403 wrote: »Definitely not in sports that require bodily contact with each other, such as wrestling or football. Performing those sports requires physical contact that is inappropriate between people of the opposite sex.
ROFL I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and as a smaller guy, I train with women all the time.
I would seriously invite you to train with a purple belt or higher, and see how sexual you think it is. 100% you will be too busy thinking "my everything hurts!"
Leave your antiquated nonsense unsaid - this is idiocy.0 -
was thinking of this recently, mostly because of the phenom little league female pitcher. That's pretty much the biggest stage she'll have an opportunity to be on, and that seemed sad. I'm not really going to weight in on what sports would be more appropriately co-ed... but I do hope that IF there are or will be women that can legitimately compete with men at the highest level then they should be allowed that opportunity. but anything less would just make a farce of the sport.0
-
This thread makes me sad.
Me too! Sounds a lot like, "my dad can beat up your dad."
If they want to compete, they should.
Women are breaking into “men’s sports” all the time. And I bet if I handed the men on this thread a field hockey stick and sent you out against a college team, they’d wipe the field with you. The context of the question isn’t who is the best athlete, but should there be competition.
0 -
I don't understand why people are only comparing elites. The place this would make the most difference is with the non-elite.
If we were looking at rec league soccer, where no one was particularly skilled, women and men could easily play on equal footing. It would simply be based on their natural athletics and lifestyles. In that case, say there is a 5' 9" woman and a 5' 9" man, both untrained, both desk jobs, but both somewhat active, there's nothing saying one person wouldn't be more of a "natural" at the sport than the other. And it could be either of them.
It's pretty obvious that the human body can only be developed as "elite" to a certain extent and that women and men have different limiting factors. Comparing the best of the best in each gender will only make that more apparent. Put two overweight people of the same height, weight, non-musculature against each other and gender plays faaar less of a roll, if any.0 -
I'm sorry but the first thought that popped into my head when I saw the title of this thread was, "Well, not if they ever want to win."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions