Should men and women compete against each other in athletics?
Options
Replies
-
peter56765 wrote: »These discussions of professional and/or competitive athletics are silly. Of course, competition on that level would not work and is not fair.
Using tennis as an example, I am pretty sure Serena Williams could not beat the 100th best male player.
That does not diminish female athletics. I like watching women's soccer.
Many, many people think the Women's College World Series is one of the best athletic events of the year -- walk into any sports-bar when it is being played.
And it is worth noting: When a 50th-ranked male player came out publicly and said that women should not earn the same prize money as men at the Grand Slam tennis tournaments, because female tennis wasn't as interesting, Maria Sharapova responded: "I am pretty sure more people watch my matches than watch his."
She was right.
I suspect she was. Could the same be said when Matina Navratilova was the top female tennis player? I think we all know the answer and we all know it has nothing to do with how well either of them played. Is that what we really want to make female sports more "interesting"?
I do not understand what you are saying? Yes. Many of Martina Navratilova's matches were televised, as were the men's finals. People watched Martina. They loved watching her rivalry with Chris Evert.
Fewer people attended the lower-ranked men's matches and they were not televised.
I am going to guess that the point you allude to is that people won't watch women's sports because women do not jump as high or run as fast as men. But that is just not true.
But whatever the reason, women's sports are overall less popular than men's. WNBA vs. NBA. LPGA vs. PGA. Men's soccer vs. women's soccer. All collegiate sports. There are a few notable exceptions: women's gymnastics and figure skating typically rate higher than men's but most people only pay attention to those sports once every four years.
That's one reason but it's certainly not the only reason. Major league baseball is much more popular than minor league baseball even though it is the exact same game, many of the teams are evenly matched and in both cases, it's men only. The difference? The level of athleticism.People watch sports for the drama and the uncertainty of the outcome. If opponents are fairly and evenly matched, that drama is there.
That was a once in a lifetime type of event and had everything to do with the drama and almost nothing to do with a well-past-his-prime 55 year old playing tennis against a 29 year old. And while Billy Jean King did decisively defeat Riggs, the match only came about because Riggs had previously defeated the #1 ranked women's player two month's prior.BTW, the most watched tennis match of all time is the match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. And the woman won!
0 -
I think women and men should be able to compete. What I take exception to is when they make rules to accommodate one or the other. I play on several Indoor Soccer teams. One of them is Co-Ed. They have an "Intimidation" rule. It prevents men from taking full force shots on goal if there is a female between him and the goal. I disagree with that. A lot of those women are better than the men. If a woman is going to call out intimidation, then she shouldn't be in that league. She should be playing in the Woman's League.0
-
I don't think that they should have to, especially if we're talking about elite level, purely because of the advantages physically that male athletes (in general) have over female athletes.
However, by all means if you want to, go for it. A lot of sports at lower levels have men training alongside, and competing with women. I did Muay Thai for a while where I was up against men, it's no big deal for me. I aim to be stronger than most men, and there's no reason to suggest that on an individual basis you can't hold your own / win against a male counterpart.0 -
These discussions of professional and/or competitive athletics are silly. Of course, competition on that level would not work and is not fair.
Using tennis as an example, I am pretty sure Serena Williams could not beat the 100th best male player.
That does not diminish female athletics. I like watching women's soccer.
Many, many people think the Women's College World Series is one of the best athletic events of the year -- walk into any sports-bar when it is being played.
And it is worth noting: When a 50th-ranked male player came out publicly and said that women should not earn the same prize money as men at the Grand Slam tennis tournaments, because female tennis wasn't as interesting, Maria Sharapova responded: "I am pretty sure more people watch my matches than watch his."
She was right.
I don't think the discussion of professional/competitive athletics is silly. Isn't that the purpose of competing, to try to achieve a higher level? I don't get where people are diminishing female athletics either. As a matter of fact, that is the complete opposite of what I am doing. I want to see the woman's race promoted just as much as the men's race (and that applies to all sport, not just race specific). It is sad they don't get the money and attention the male counterparts get.
If it is not fair for men and women to compete at higher levels, why is it fair at lower levels?
If we eliminate the male/female competition at lower levels, how does one get to be elite? Like Myfelinepal pointed out, if we were to eliminate male/female competitions at the lower levels, I truly believe there would be an overall drop in female competitors at the higher levels.
0 -
I am sorry, 3dogs. I wasn't aware I had said we should eliminated coed sports at the lower levels. Indeed, I think I mentioned that I personally have played coed soccer and mixed-doubles tennis and greatly enjoyed both.
What I said was: At certain levels it doesn't make sense to combine men and women. Men are stronger and faster and more aggressive. No woman could make the starting squad of an English Premier League football team. No woman. But that doesn't not diminish women's sports. I watch every match of the US women's soccer team and enjoy it.
No woman tennis player is going to beat a male player at the same regional, national, or world ranking. The 25th ranked man is always going to beat the 25th ranked woman. That doesn't mean that women's tennis isn't any good, to watch or to play. Or that, on the amateur level, the sexes shouldn't mix.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »These discussions of professional and/or competitive athletics are silly. Of course, competition on that level would not work and is not fair.
Using tennis as an example, I am pretty sure Serena Williams could not beat the 100th best male player.
That does not diminish female athletics. I like watching women's soccer.
Many, many people think the Women's College World Series is one of the best athletic events of the year -- walk into any sports-bar when it is being played.
And it is worth noting: When a 50th-ranked male player came out publicly and said that women should not earn the same prize money as men at the Grand Slam tennis tournaments, because female tennis wasn't as interesting, Maria Sharapova responded: "I am pretty sure more people watch my matches than watch his."
She was right.
I suspect she was. Could the same be said when Matina Navratilova was the top female tennis player? I think we all know the answer and we all know it has nothing to do with how well either of them played. Is that what we really want to make female sports more "interesting"?
I do not understand what you are saying? Yes. Many of Martina Navratilova's matches were televised, as were the men's finals. People watched Martina. They loved watching her rivalry with Chris Evert.
Fewer people attended the lower-ranked men's matches and they were not televised.
I am going to guess that the point you allude to is that people won't watch women's sports because women do not jump as high or run as fast as men. But that is just not true.
But whatever the reason, women's sports are overall less popular than men's. WNBA vs. NBA. LPGA vs. PGA. Men's soccer vs. women's soccer. All collegiate sports. There are a few notable exceptions: women's gymnastics and figure skating typically rate higher than men's but most people only pay attention to those sports once every four years.
That's one reason but it's certainly not the only reason. Major league baseball is much more popular than minor league baseball even though it is the exact same game, many of the teams are evenly matched and in both cases, it's men only. The difference? The level of athleticism.People watch sports for the drama and the uncertainty of the outcome. If opponents are fairly and evenly matched, that drama is there.
That was a once in a lifetime type of event and had everything to do with the drama and almost nothing to do with a well-past-his-prime 55 year old playing tennis against a 29 year old. And while Billy Jean King did decisively defeat Riggs, the match only came about because Riggs had previously defeated the #1 ranked women's player two month's prior.BTW, the most watched tennis match of all time is the match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. And the woman won!
I cannot answer your statement about more people wanting to watch Major League baseball over minor league because what they care about is the level of athleticism and skill.
Except to say that it is not, essentially, true. I believe more people watch and follow March Madness than follow the NBA Finals. That would not be the case if what you say is true. Most of those guys won't even make the NBA, let alone make it and not be on a championship team. Especially given that the NBA has much more money to promote its games.
I believe more people watch the BCS College Football National Championship games than watch the World Series, or the Master's golf tournament, or the NBA Finals, or the NFL playoffs.
0 -
I believe more people watch and follow March Madness than follow the NBA Finals.
I believe more people watch the BCS College Football National Championship games than watch the World Series, or the Master's golf tournament, or the NBA Finals, or the NFL playoffs.
What is March Madness or BCS College Football?0 -
I am sorry, 3dogs. I wasn't aware I had said we should eliminated coed sports at the lower levels. Indeed, I think I mentioned that I personally have played coed soccer and mixed-doubles tennis and greatly enjoyed both.
What I said was: At certain levels it doesn't make sense to combine men and women. Men are stronger and faster and more aggressive. No woman could make the starting squad of an English Premier League football team. No woman. But that doesn't not diminish women's sports. I watch every match of the US women's soccer team and enjoy it.
No woman tennis player is going to beat a male player at the same regional, national, or world ranking. The 25th ranked man is always going to beat the 25th ranked woman. That doesn't mean that women's tennis isn't any good, to watch or to play. Or that, on the amateur level, the sexes shouldn't mix.
Obviously I misunderstood something in your post. I agree with much of what you are saying. I also don't believe they shouldn't mix, but I wouldn't want to see the elimination of the male and female events. Perhaps part of the problem is the perspective I am coming from and that is my fault. My main interests are in running and triathlon so I tend to come at it from that perspective ( I am not limiting my thoughts to just those but that is the "competition" I know best). Typically the race is done at the same time, with both men and women on the course but with are considered seperate events. Having male and females competing would mean eliminating the "male" race and "female" race. We have long had an issue with the local paper regarding posting race results where the list the "winner" of the race as the first person to cross the finish line whereas there are technically two races, a men's race and a women's race. Only recently have they come around to recognizing both.
0 -
Equal doesn't mean the same.0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »If we are going to do a true comparison in athleticism, it makes no sense to bring dedicating and commitment into it since those are really unmeasurable traits.
You know it when you see it, and that’s all that matters. You could be bigger, stronger and faster, but if you’re not making an effort, someone who is less endowed can kick your *kitten*. Since the OP was talking about general competition, I don’t immediately jump to the top of the food chain in each sport. I also don’t assume she meant sports that men would always have a physical advantage in (you and I would look pretty weak playing a in a college level field hockey match).
I don't think the OP specified whether they were talking about in general or not or what kind of sports.
Since we are bringing up things like commitment and mental fortitude, it makes sense to compare at an elite level since I'm pretty sure most of us can agree that those who reach those levels are not lacking there.
But I asked earlier, if men are going to compete against women in general, is that going to carry over to elite levels? If we arent going to compete against each other at elite levels, why do it at lower?
Because that is life. We all aren’t elite. So, on a person by person basis, we all compete. You can probably kick my *kitten* in some things, I can kick yours in others. Lower is where most of us live.0 -
GilBrennan wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GilBrennan wrote: »So... not equal?
Not physiologically, no.
So I should keep opening doors?
Yes, because it is the right thing to do, not because she needs assistance. Respect and competition are not mutually exclusive.0 -
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.
Although the running speed and height thing makes intuitive sense there are studies that show there is no such correlation.
0 -
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.
Although the running speed and height thing makes intuitive sense there are studies that show there is no such correlation.
Exactly. A 6’5” woman should be able to out run a 5’10” man?
Back to the Op original question. Yes, they should compete. It makes us both better for it.
0 -
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.0
-
I believe more people watch and follow March Madness than follow the NBA Finals.
I believe more people watch the BCS College Football National Championship games than watch the World Series, or the Master's golf tournament, or the NBA Finals, or the NFL playoffs.
What is March Madness or BCS College Football?
USA college-level sports championships. March Madness is the nickname for the men's basketball tournament. BCS = Bowl Championship Series, which is for (men's) American football.0 -
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?
0 -
GilBrennan wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GilBrennan wrote: »So... not equal?
Not physiologically, no.
So I should keep opening doors?
Open (or hold) doors for anyone who needs it or is coming up immediately behind you, not just women. I do that for all kinds of people (I'm a woman).
Also (for women and men and everyone):
- do not take up more than one seat on the subway
- if you are sitting on a bus or subway and see that a senior, pregnant woman, or person with a disability cannot find an accessible seat, give them yours
- do not stop and block people in the middle of the sidewalk or in front of an escalator or at a crosswalk or when you get on or off a subway
- let people off the subway before getting on
- don't spit in the street, it's gross
thank you for your time0 -
peter56765 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »These discussions of professional and/or competitive athletics are silly. Of course, competition on that level would not work and is not fair.
Using tennis as an example, I am pretty sure Serena Williams could not beat the 100th best male player.
That does not diminish female athletics. I like watching women's soccer.
Many, many people think the Women's College World Series is one of the best athletic events of the year -- walk into any sports-bar when it is being played.
And it is worth noting: When a 50th-ranked male player came out publicly and said that women should not earn the same prize money as men at the Grand Slam tennis tournaments, because female tennis wasn't as interesting, Maria Sharapova responded: "I am pretty sure more people watch my matches than watch his."
She was right.
I suspect she was. Could the same be said when Matina Navratilova was the top female tennis player? I think we all know the answer and we all know it has nothing to do with how well either of them played. Is that what we really want to make female sports more "interesting"?
I do not understand what you are saying? Yes. Many of Martina Navratilova's matches were televised, as were the men's finals. People watched Martina. They loved watching her rivalry with Chris Evert.
Fewer people attended the lower-ranked men's matches and they were not televised.
I am going to guess that the point you allude to is that people won't watch women's sports because women do not jump as high or run as fast as men. But that is just not true.
But whatever the reason, women's sports are overall less popular than men's. WNBA vs. NBA. LPGA vs. PGA. Men's soccer vs. women's soccer. All collegiate sports. There are a few notable exceptions: women's gymnastics and figure skating typically rate higher than men's but most people only pay attention to those sports once every four years.
That's one reason but it's certainly not the only reason. Major league baseball is much more popular than minor league baseball even though it is the exact same game, many of the teams are evenly matched and in both cases, it's men only. The difference? The level of athleticism.People watch sports for the drama and the uncertainty of the outcome. If opponents are fairly and evenly matched, that drama is there.
That was a once in a lifetime type of event and had everything to do with the drama and almost nothing to do with a well-past-his-prime 55 year old playing tennis against a 29 year old. And while Billy Jean King did decisively defeat Riggs, the match only came about because Riggs had previously defeated the #1 ranked women's player two month's prior.BTW, the most watched tennis match of all time is the match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. And the woman won!
I cannot answer your statement about more people wanting to watch Major League baseball over minor league because what they care about is the level of athleticism and skill.
Except to say that it is not, essentially, true. I believe more people watch and follow March Madness than follow the NBA Finals. That would not be the case if what you say is true. Most of those guys won't even make the NBA, let alone make it and not be on a championship team. Especially given that the NBA has much more money to promote its games.
I believe more people watch the BCS College Football National Championship games than watch the World Series, or the Master's golf tournament, or the NBA Finals, or the NFL playoffs.
You do realize that there is data, advertising data, that proves you wrong? lol.0 -
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.
0 -
All things being equal (skill) the bigger man wins (strength).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions