Nobody here is arguing that women are inferior because they can’t compete on the male level. I’m reading many arguments that throw up singular people and one time events, body differences etc. as if to defend them against charges of being “the weaker sex”. The fact is, on a general basic over hundreds of years, it has been proven that women cannot compete at the top level as it currently exists.
I made this “as they currently exist” point before, and someone else expanded upon it to remark that sports centered around men and the rules evolved to play to their strengths. Sports are about winning. No matter what they say about fair play, cooperation, etc, winning is the ultimate goal. If a team could gain an advantage by having a woman in the lineup, they would be there. Jackie Robinson.
Female jockeys have also competed successfully against men. But as in auto racing of various forms, issues of size and strength aren’t really involved. For jockeys, women as a group have the advantage in size over men.
As for the OP, that match between King and Riggs could hardly be called a serious athletic competition. No one who understood the abilities of the two would have thought Riggs could win based on athletic ability. He was given a chance as a con man who had psyched out other opponents who should have defeated him based on athletic ability alone.
That’s not entirely true. There is a lot of pressure toward winning, but sports are not a pure meritocracy and there is enough room for human biases and old boys’ club-ism - and then there’s the matter of making money. The color barrier in the MLB didn’t last forever, but before the Dodgers promoted Jackie Robinson plenty of great black players were denied a chance to play in the majors because of segregation. The Red Sox didn’t have a black player until 12 years later, and even after all the major pro sports were integrated, it took a long time before people believed African-Americans had the capability to succeed in leadership positions like quarterback or non-playing roles like manager or coach or GM. If teams thought they would win more games and make more money by adding female players, I think they would do it eventually. But eventually might take a long time to get here.
Rigg had won Wimbledon in 1939 and had been twice a US Champion as well as been ranked number 1. He was a middle aged man true, but hardly a non entity as a tennis player. For me the more significant thing is that he beat Margaret Court. A man 34 years from his prime can defeat the world’s best female player; that is something to wonder about.
Lindsey Vonn was denied a spot in a men’s alpine race she wanted to compete in: Article
There were reasons given, but those sounded rather contrived to me. It was said that she would have an advantage on the other women athletes in the women’s race a week later on the same course.
He won Wimbleton nearly 40 years beforehand and you think that would make him favored against King? That’s baffling. He conned Court, something King knew, and she handed him his ass on a platter.
In an identical mass, identical training a men will always perform better in physical sports then women but there are exception.
Also, if you take a look at all the Olympic games, men records are way higher, bigger etc then the equivalent women records.
Now at this example, lets to the other test too. Take a 55 year old female and pit it agains a 30 year old male, see who wins then.
Because in pretty much every sport, once you get past a certain age, men “as a class” are better than women “as a class”. One sport where the opposite is almost certainly true: women’s gymnastics (as the events are tailored toward female flexibility more than strength).
There was a time in California where, in high schools, there were to types of teams (except in, say, badminton, where you needed both boys and girls on a team); one open to everybody, and one open only to girls. (For example, you had a “basketball” (or “student basketball”) team, and a “girls’ basketball” team; there was no such thing as “boys’ basketball”.) This conceded that “boys are better athletes than girls, but not every boy is a better athlete than every girl.” (BTW, this is still the rule in “one-team” sports like baseball (open to boys and girls) and softball (girls only).)
I wonder if women are allowed to participate in the NCAA “Men’s Basketball Championship”; I don’t think there has ever been a woman play for a Division I men’s basketball team. Baseball, yes, but it’s not called “men’s baseball.”
No. The point was that he had been a top player once and was not just some tennis enthusiast with a chauvainistic outlook. He was however in his fifties.Both Court and King should have beat him and the fact he pretty convincingly beat Court says quite a lot about the relative levels of mens tennis. How woukd Tracy Austin fare against Nadal or Federer?
Why do you think women do so well, relatively, in fell running and ultra marathon stuff? [I ask because you’re very knowledgeable about running]. The gap here seems a lot smaller than other sports - people like Angela Mudge or Helen Diamantides are legends in those sports here in the UK. They are bad ass - not too many men would be coming in ahead of them off the fells and that’s the toughest running you can do.
It’s a very niche sport so maybe you get these spikey sort of talent distributions?
The bolded part is what I was responding to. I coach at the high school level and I see no lack of competitive drive in the girls. Yes, some when first starting out are unsure of themselves but most grow in spirit as they improve physically.
Following track/cross country at all levels shows no shortage of fiercely competitive women.
Fell running and ultramarathoning are both very much niche activities and self selects for the more driven(in general).
It’s a tactic of the game. Top tennis players can judge the way a ball is going to travel by the sound it makes when it hits the racket. So some players started grunting or shouting at the moment they hit the ball to mask the sound. Traditional players complained but the judges ruled it was allowable. Not wanting to give their opponents a one-sided advantage, even the players who didn’t like the tactic had to adopt it.
I’m guessing that “volley” here is catachrestic for “stroke”, and that’s certainly possibly the case. On the other hand men are routinely returning serves that would leave women flat-footed. What you lose on the roundabouts, and all that.
Take a cursory look at the ANY Olympic sport where speed, strength or endurance are involved and it is clear as day that Women and Men should not be competing against each other in most “physical” sports.
Now if you want to discuss curling, diving, equestrian and the like… sure Women can compete. But otherwise, it is not even remotely fair.
As an example; in the 2012 Olympic men’s 100m final, the DEAD LAST time (excluding Asafa Powell who pulled up with a groin injury) was 9.98. For the women, the gold medal winner ran a 10.72, nearly 0.8 seconds slower.
And the world record for the women is still a full half second slower than that same dead last final time in the men’s event.
Grunting may have evolved in that direction - and at this point it’s better called shrieking or screaming - but I don’t think that was the original purpose. There is certainly gamesmanship involved, since you can see some of the players make more noise at specific junctures in the match than others.
How would she, in her prime, have done against Riggs back when he played King? I wouldn’t be surprised if Riggs would have won, mainly because Austin (and, IIRC, Chris Evert and Andrea Jaegar) were moonballers. IIRC, Evert was offered the challenge by Riggs before King, and she turned it down - smart move, if you ask me. Also remember that Court’s loss was pretty much at the end of her career, while King would win Wimbledon three years later.
Long-distance events seem to be in two directions when it comes to men vs. women; wasn’t the record for swimming the English Channel held by women for a long time, yet in the Race Across America cross-country bicycle race, men do much better than women.
Halep actually had breast reduction surgery a few years ago. I’m guessing that’s a “before” picture. She’s a top 50 player these days. Obviously sex appeal is part of the marketing of women’s tennis, but I don’t think the grunting draws viewers in- I think it keeps people away because it’s so annoying to listen to.
I agree with you about the grunting. Wasn’t it Monica Seles’ grunts that were SO annoying? More a shrill shreak than a grunt.
Glad to learn about Simona Halep’s success. I imagine losing substantial ballast would be advantageous to her game - and I’m being totally serious here. Yes, I’m guessing that’s a “before” shot of her.
