Should men and women compete against each other in athletics?

GiddyupTim

VeryKatie wrote: »

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.

Katie, I discussed this already. I have played coed rec soccer. Pick-up soccer is fine. There are women with great skill who can hang with the men. And it makes for a good game because they play differently.
The problem tends to be when you make it organized. In those cases, the men who are good players? Who might be safe players because they have the physical and emotional control? They choose not to play coed because it is not as fun. The women are not as fast.
What that means is that the guys who do play coed are not as experienced. Many of them still have delusions of athletic grandeur. They are MUCH more aggressive than the women and they are kind of a hazard. It is a bit dangerous for the women. They get pushed around. They get knocked down. I have seen women hurt, from an out-of-control man running into them.
So, in the case of two untrained people running on the pitch, it is not really a crap-shoot who will be better. The male will tend to be much more aggressive.

The book "The Sports Gene," by David Epstein, says that in running -- any distance -- the difference between the top 10 men finishers and the top 10 women finishers will be an average of about 11 percent. That is the actual physical difference.
Men also seem to throw much harder, Epstein's book says, from an early age. The fastest baseball thrown by a woman was 65 mph, according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

Sarauk2sf

cliffodom1 wrote: »

Sarauk2sf 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.

I am comparing them as that was the assertion by you - which was incorrect - even when comparing top tier boys to top tier women - the women beat the totals and was way way above the deadlift. Now - take the high school boy that you were trying to say would beat the female - they would be no-where near competitive (as an elite national level boy does not have a better total). Open up the age/weight groups - men will always beat out women in the sport.

Sarauk2sf

herrspoons wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

cliffodom1 wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

cliffodom1 wrote: »

cliffodom1 wrote: »

Sarauk2sf 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, a

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

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).

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?

The US ones.

We're probably arguing semantics here. My point is that men will generally beat women at most sports from an early age because that's just they way our species, and most other mammals, have evolved. It's a matter of biology, just as male spiders being killed and eaten by the much more powerful females is.

This in no way means that women can't be strong, athletic, and powerful, it just means that were you to take examples of maximum strength, speed, and possibly endurance (this one is less certain) at species level, all your examples would be male because that's just how evolutionary selection works and has worked for us as a species. In the case of some spiders, insects, and fish, for example, the opposite is true as the selection pressures were different.

None of which means that women are inferior to men, merely that some capabilities are different.

Which US ones - USAPL RAW - as I do not see any total even near 2,000 for a 16 - 17 year old? Does not change the outcome - but the highest in the open weight class is 'only' 1,427lb. The women's is 1,344.75lb

If you opened everything up - I do not disagree, as I have already mentioned - however, I was responding to the posters assertion (which was in a HS competition scenario so applying weight classes is a reasonable assumption) regarding 'good' HS level boys. That assertion was incorrect. Its actually incorrect in some states, depending on the depth of the field, even looking at open weigh groups (when comparing Elite females). That was my only point. Well, other than trying to work out what sport(s) he was referring to and what is curious commentary re being PC was.

One point also - is that one of the reasons that the teens would be behind the females is really experience. A 30 year old women for example could have more than 10 years under her belt. A teen would not - and they would have to deal with changing levers as they grow.

Sarauk2sf

rand486 wrote: »

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.

I mentioned earlier in this thread - but I used to train in no gi jiu jitsu (10th Planet). I basically only rolled with guys as they rarely had women train there. Absolutely nothing inappropriate about it.

To address one of the points that has kind of been brought up, the guys actually liked rolling with me - not because of anything 'inappropriate', but they could focus on technique more rather than getting into a muscling/aggressive match (as there was never the risk of them losing - I was terrible at it - not bad at defense though...I got a lot of practice lol). It gave them a bit of a breather also - sparring at the end is freaking tiring!.