Should men and women compete against each other in athletics?
Replies
-
lishie_rebooted wrote: »I want to add and I'm too lazy to edit...
It all depends on the determination of the people.
The weak-willed will always fail regardless of gender.
So, genetics and basic aptitude have no play in it?0 -
In answer to the OP, in most cases, no.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.
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?
Why are you assuming that women are smaller?
I am taller and stronger than 90% of the men I encounter.
As long as the men can handle being beaten...why not?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.
0 -
In things like archery, sure, but not in things where men (or women) have the physiological advantage.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.
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.
Oh right, Flo Jo! I remember watching her and thinking she was amazing. Just now googled, lots of talk about steroids.
(Which then led to reading about East German teen athletes being unknowingly doped in the 80s. Sad stories there, they had no choice in it at all
) 0 -
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?
0 -
tornACL2012 wrote: »Does it work better in some sports like soccer, but not work for things like martial arts?
For some sports gender will have less of an influence over the results than other factors. For some sports more of an influence. Equally it depends on the level.
Given high volume, very specific, training then it's easy to see why the physiological differences will have a more pronounced effect.0 -
On a hobbyist level? Absolutely, and we already do.
On a pro level? Well... I only know a few cases, two female hockey players (the hands down best forward in the world, Haley Wickenheiser and the hands down best goalie in the world, Noora Räty) both have played some games in the third highest men's division in Finland with, well, average results. So, the top-2 professionally competing women in the world are doing OK against men with day jobs in a physical team sport.
Ice hockey in general, the women's national squad in Finland (nr. 3 in the world) are usually playing some off-season practice games against 14-16 year old boys, and for the most part I seem to recall that the boys come out on top.
There are some female drivers as well that I know off, but none of them have really made it on the highest levels. This is probably at least partially because of the very limited interest in motorsports among women. There could very well be some superb drivers out there who have never even thought of the possibility of competing, even on a hobbyist level.0 -
There are some female drivers as well that I know off, but none of them have really made it on the highest levels. This is probably at least partially because of the very limited interest in motorsports among women.
There is probably a degree of systemic bias, but that'll just compound the market penetration issue.
0 -
This is a silly debate. We're equal.
Let that be our guide.0 -
Male elite athletes will beat out female elite athletes in any highly physical athletic competition because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and the genetic disparity between the sexes that resulted.
0 -
So... not equal?0
-
GilBrennan wrote: »So... not equal?
Not physiologically, no.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GilBrennan wrote: »So... not equal?
Not physiologically, no.
So I should keep opening doors?-1 -
GilBrennan wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GilBrennan wrote: »So... not equal?
Not physiologically, no.
So I should keep opening doors?
Don't attempt to start a debate that has nothing to do with the topic, no one (hopefully) is falling for it.0 -
I think it depends on the sport. Things like Rugby and Football I think men would have an unfair advantage due to do size and strength alone. Sports like Soccer, Baseball, Track & Field, etc., could work.
I've found co-ed sports difficult for me at times because I grew-up with the whole "you never hit a woman". I've found that even in things like Soccer when I go to attack the ball that if a woman is going after it I tend to back off. It's not because I don't respect her it's just because I'm concerned about slamming into her.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GilBrennan wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GilBrennan wrote: »So... not equal?
Not physiologically, no.
So I should keep opening doors?
Don't attempt to start a debate that has nothing to do with the topic, no one (hopefully) is falling for it.
hah, white knight is mad!
It's super effective.
Let them compete together, it's not for money, so who cares. When it's for money, let those who can afford it compete. God can sort the bodies out later.-1 -
I played soccer for many, many years. Even played on a coed team once. I thought it was a disaster. Males are much more aggressive. Most of the males who played coed were not good players. Good players played in all-male leagues. The coed guys were guys who had played in high school and had not played much since and often they were too competitive and played out of control. I never saw a woman hurt seriously, but I saw them knocked down and hurt.
Now, that was a while ago, and things are different now. Women grow up playing soccer and many have excellent skills -- heck, better skills than American men of my generation had. They can hold their own on the field and they do. I see pick-up soccer games all the time with many women in them. Can they run as fast? No. Can they bump back when play gets physical? No. But they are not out of the game. If they want to do it, and the guys are willing to not be thugs, women definitely should play.
It is nice to have females out there. And guys are more used to it too and they make slight allowances.
I think the same holds true for pick-up basketball games on college campuses. Many women chose to play now and their teams win!
I enjoy playing mixed doubles tennis. However, many guys who play will pick on the woman as the weaker player and even hit close-range overheads at her. It can be a bit hard to take.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 would then lead to women not getting sponsorship/funding at all because there's no chance of them being in the elite and you would see women in sports becoming even less visible than they are currently.
That's not to say that some sports (think pub sports e.g. darts, snooker) women could compete as equals to men. Horse racing has had more female jockeys introduced recently, for instance. Formula 1 and other motorsports also have the ocassional women drivers.
But, out and out physical sports it would ruin women within that sport because they'd have no chance to be best in the world.
That would include tennis (30 mph difference in fastest serve speed) and probably golf (35 yd average driving distance difference.)
My resources are google and wikipedia, so not gospel, but you get the idea.
This. There are women can certainly compete professionally with men in athletics. But whereas one woman might be at the top of her game on the women's side, she'd just be highly-gifted but not top material on the men's side.
Using the reference of Flo Jo. She wouldn't be at the finals for men's 100m. She wouldn't have qualified to represent the USA because of the higher level of competition. But she would have been competitive and beat men in the first round at the Olympics. So I guess it depends on your definition of elite. If your definition of elite would be the finals, no she wouldn't be elite. If your definition of elite would be competing in the first round, then yes. There are those who could be competitive, but wouldn't not be top level due to some innate genetic advantages. Just like there are women who could sit on the end of an NBA bench or play D league, but they wouldn't be Lebron...most men won't either
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.0 -
Invariably when size and strength are an advantage women can't compete so it would be the death knell for females in such sports. Sure at amatuer levels it's less of an issue but at elite/pro level then there'd be no place for women - they just couldn't overcome the physiological differences even if they worked harder.
I play golf and we do compete but there is a handicap system and also a difference in the length of the course. Both work although it's one of the few sports where the beter you get the harder it is to win (unless it's a scratch competition).0 -
At the elite level, only the top physical specimens can compete. The reason Michael Phelps wins is not only because he is an top form, it's because genetics has favored him: He's 6'4"". His arms are 3" longer than the average for his height. He has size 14 feet vs the average size 12 for his height. He has relatively short legs and a longer trunk. He has a genetic advantage that causes his muscles to produce less lactic acid, etc. He's definitely an outlier physically among men. And while there are almost no other men in the world like him, there are no women at all in his category.
In the US, having men and women compete at the collegiate level would be a thorny issue. Title IX demands colleges allocate money equally for men and women's sports and scholarships but if there was only one co-ed team per sport (basketball, football, hockey, swimming, etc.) it would be mostly men just based on statistics. So you'd either have to ditch Title IX, which means men and women no longer would have equal opportunities in collegiate athletics or else create quotas dictating equal numbers of men and women on each team and demand equal playing time - a bureaucratic nightmare - and of course it would kill the competitive nature of the sport. Everyone would know that the best team was never being fielded and coaches would not be able to substitute in any athlete they want for strategic purposes.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 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"?0 -
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. People watch sports for the drama and the uncertainty of the outcome. If opponents are fairly and evenly matched, that drama is there.
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 know a few women who can out lift me in everything lol. They are in the 150lb range and I weigh 220. I also know a couple ladies who would kick my *kitten* in a sparring match0
-
Sure; dismantle Title IX, instituted survival of the fittest and no more crying about lack of equal opportunity. I would love to live in la la land of social equality but it's only 2015.0
-
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.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
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions