If they stopped wearing panties, that foolishness would be brought to a halt and the public could concentrate on the players as athletes.
Yeah, right. 
The OP is a great reminder of the absurd lengths men will go to to try to point out women’s alleged “privilege”. It’s also a pretty good indication that he has no idea what people mean when they talk about gender equality. Other than that, though, good job!
Women’s leagues are like weight categories in judo or MMA. Is it unfair that Hosokawa didn’t have to fight Yamashita?
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes:
WTF. If “equality” was the criteria, we would not have most women’s sports. Men’s sports usually rely on market forces for support. At all levels of a particular sport.If that was the criteria employed, then except for tennis and maybe golf, women’s sports would be mostly fringe entities.
I’m not sure. Why would a match between the world’s best woman player and a washed-up has-been knocking on retirement age have any relevance to anything?
Mind you, weight for weight women would still get their asses kicked.
Regards,
Malacandra
I remember during the last Summer Olympics, I told a female friend of mine I’ve been following the women’s volleyball, to which she said while rolling her eyes at me “Wow, color me surprised.”
I tried to convince her that I found the sport entertaining, but she wouldn’t believe me as
after I was unable to answer questions on how the men’s volleyball team was doing.
Oops!
In my defense, they did give a lion’s share of the coverage to the women’s volleyball.
In your sport, the animals are the athletes. Make the humans run the course and then see how many females can beat the men.
What gave you the impression that equality was based on market forces? What about equality of access or participation - you know, the crazy idea that games should be available based on who wants to play? Not that kstarnes is the first to do it, but OP seems to have concocted the idea that the only people who should be able to play sports professionally are the small number who can consistently beat everyone else in the sport. If you are not on that level but you still want to watch or play a sport, why, that’s privilege!*
*In this context privilege seems to mean “a thing kstarnes doesn’t like.” A lot of things are privilege.
Animal and human are co-athlete. If you think being on top of and controlling 1200+ lbs of flying horse is easy, you don’t know much about horse sports.
What? U.S. Open women’s final scores higher TV ratings than men’s final. That was just last year, but the article also gives numbers like how the highest recent ratings for a men’s final (Federer/Rodereck) was 5.1, but the highest for women recently (Williams/Williams) was 7.2. Women’s tennis consistently gets better TV ratings. I think it’s fair to say it generates more interest.
And it’s not just the short skirts. The women’s game is more likely to produce extended volleys, while the men’s game is too often a monotonous contest of who can break the others 140 mph serve.
Does the fact that men are physically stronger than women represent a special male privilege?
There are a lot of apples to oranges comparisons here. Because of rain delays the women’s final was held on Sunday afternoon and the men’s final was on Monday night. The ratings tank when the finals get moved to Monday nights (for one thing I think that puts them in competition with Monday Night Football). The Williams/Williams final was a decade ago was held on a Saturday night - the first time they did that with the women’s final - and that’s being compared to men’s finals on Monday nights or Sunday afternoons. So I’m not sure the women’s U.S. Open finals regularly get better ratings. The fact that that was mentioned so prominently in the story suggests they do not. That being said, Serena is a big star, so it’s possible a final that included her would do better than one that featured two foreign-born guys (even though Nadal isn’t exactly an unknown).
Ditto if you think being twenty or thirty pounds lighter is evidence of superior skill.
I don’t think it’s easy, but the best rider in the world isn’t going to make a mediocre horse turn in a world-class performance. A boxing coach is a more apt analogy than co-athlete. A great boxer may not be able to perform his best without a decent coach, but a great coach can only help a boxer maximize his own abilities, not surpass them.
He’s not earning because nobody wants to watch him play his sport. His skills, as great as they are, are not marketable. The free market has spoken.
This is a common error in sports. People forget that professional sports don’t actually matter. The skills athletes have are not actually important in any way.
Pro sports are structured events held for entertainment purposes. They are not competing for something that matters, they are competing because competition is entertaining.
Your failed athlete is not ‘superior’ to the women, not in the only factor that matters… entertainment value. The women put on a more entertaining show than Mr. Couldn’t-Quite-Make-It, HE is inferior.
This is why I prefer watching women’s tennis. IMO men’s tennis needs a means to slow down the game to bring back a volley/rally focus.
Just so you all know, the OP has a habit of starting threads, making one or two cryptic follow ups, and then abandoning the thread.
Also, for the record:
I don’t think you do. At the biggest events in the sport, men and women earn the same. Wimbledon didn’t get around to this until 2007, but the U.S. Open has had that for 40 years now. What you may recall is that once in a while a male player will complain that this is unfair. Not coincidentally, it’s usually from male players the public doesn’t care about.
What, that six hour Djokovic-Nadal final in Australia wasn’t long enough?
Possibly…
But a top notch female rider can get as much out of a mediocre horse as a top notch male rider, over exactly the same level of technical difficulty. Sometimes more, actually, because many “mediocre” horses are really very good, they just need a more tactful and sensitive ride than many male riders are apt to give.
I think the standard of women’s tennis is pretty abysmal. You may get a blip here or there and get an entertaining game but overall it is pretty poor.
The men’s game is far more thrilling. More accurate, faster hitting, faster movement, just better athletes all round. They play five sets as well which gives greater scope for the match to unfold. As for rallies, longer doesn’t necessarily mean better.