I, too, am puzzled by this. The most prominent of numerous counter-examples is Chris Sharma who has been widely regarded as the best in the world for quite some time.
Well, why is it that people always equate strength with how much you can lift or how much muscle mass you have. How about thinking about strength along the lines of being less suceptible to genetic mutations or having a greater ability to overcome diseases or being able to sustain a longer lifespan… not that I know if there are any sex discepencies on those counts. But, when you get out of a certain mindset and conceptualize strength in different ways, I am sure men on average do come out weaker at times and maybe the statement wouldn’t sound so preposterous.
I found this study not specifically about hip width but about different mechanics in men and woman while running. - http://www.runninginjuryclinic.com/Articles/Page-2.html
Push ups are an exercise easy to do with poor form and greatly increase the number of reps. In my experience men are able to do many more push ups than women and women often do ‘on the knees’ push ups. My G/F can do 20 regular push ups but her form is not that good - I keep my mouth shut 
Personally I think that when you consider all the hurdles women have to overcome (less testosterone/muscle, higher body fat, worse mechanics for most sports, etc.) it is amazing how great they do at sports.
I do amateur running races and triathlons and I am middle of the pack among men and there are plenty of women who beat me. If I had to carry ~12 pounds of dead weight (the average difference in body fat between men and woman at my weight) I would probably be in the lower half on the women’s side, and that doesn’t take into account the other hurdles they have to overcome. I really admire women who do so well.
I’m not sure why you are responding in this tone. I was not having a go at anyone.
All I was saying was that sporting performance is not a very reliable way of comparing populations, because there are so many social and economic factors that often have a larger influence than genetic differences.
And if sports are an equivocal measure at the top end, they’re even less clear an indicator for averages within populations.
None of this is particularly controversial. What part would you dispute?
Okay I think I’ve got it now.
When I keep my thighs and back perfectly straight and at 90 degree angles it is impossible for me to overcome the center. I can rise fairly high up though. As soon as any one of these angles is compromised even very slightly, I can raise up over the center using solely my back and stomach. There are other ways to overcome the position as well. Rocking slightly while in position allows for a little whipping action that makes it fairly easy to rise up, as does arching my back and scooting my head in a bit and shoving with my neck muscles. I’d be interested to see if this trick is really sex specific though, it seems that in the strict position, no person should be able to raise themselves without moving out of it slightly.
That’s just semantics. You can use your own definition of strength, sure (“I define strength as the ability to grow long eyelashes!”) but in common parlance we choose to call all those things you cited by their own names rather than lumping every attribute a human being might have under the name “strength”.
You might, for example, choose to say “intelligence is a strength!”, and yes, it is a strength. But it has its own name: intelligence. It doesn’t need to co-opt the name “strength” which is commonly assumed to refer to lifting and explosive power and stuff.
Makes it easier to talk that way. Different words for different things. 
Because those are examples of durability, not strength; which is a useful distinction to make. As is happens however women have a slightly longer natural lifespan and greater resistance to disease & parasites. Female animals in general tend to be more resistant in fact; for some unknown reason testosterone and related substances weakens the immune system. Hyenas are matriarchal and their females have higher testosterone than their males, and hyenas are one of the few animals where females have weaker immune systems.
I think it has to do with internet research being done quickly by people who know nothing about climbing. I imagine Lynn Hill’s name comes up quite a bit on internet searches. A bit surprising that nobody was able to correct them though.
I suspect that the women who beat you are not average in many respects, including body fat.
I’m sure they are not, but as a relatively fit male my body fat is about the same as many pro female athletes and much less than most recreational female athletes. It still hurts my feelings when they go running by me 
I have heard that women tend to progress faster in climbing, at the beginner levels anyway. The reasoning I heard is most men can pull themselves up the easier routes using almost entirely arm strength. Most women need to compensate for their lower upper body strength by learning better technique right away.
At higher levels I am sure you need both great technique and strength.
The original post sounds a lot to me like some feminists needed to reassure themselves. Why they needed to do it with something that is so obviously not correct remains a mystery to me. After all, women are so great in many regards, superior to men in some, inferior in others. Why not accept it?
An alternative explanation I read once was that the trauma of child-birth and the disease exposure of the child-rearing role expose women to greater risks of infections; hence evolution selects for those women with better immune systems.
Makes sense - but those selected women have sons as well as daughters.
Yes, that is pretty much the case. Actually, its pretty much the case in any sport for males or females that lack athletic ability but are determined to get better. But it takes great technique AND great athletic ability to be in the ranks of the elite.
Keep in mind that most, if not all, sports were designed by men for men. Women start at a disadvantage if these are the sports you use for comparison.
If we took an average man and a woman of the same height and weight and gave them both 12 months of vigorous training, which would be stronger? And even how would you measure it accurately without bias for traditionally-male sport activities?
Regarding the argument about the endurance and possible genetic superiority of women, I agree. Women are stronger generally in that manner. And we don’t go bald so quickly either. 
But we are talking about physical strength.
Besides, some female advantages like a longer lifespan and stronger immune system aren’t really useful for sports. “Competitive aging” would be rather dull. And I don’t think a “plague and pestilence” tournament would catch on :D.
Sports like running and swimming were “designed” by men for men?? Any evidence for this contention?
What endurance activities do women have the advantage in?
I would think in the majority of cases, the man would be. Strength seems like something that would be very easy to quantify. Wouldn’t just seeing how much weight could be lifted by whatever body part you are trying to assess do the trick?
Cold water swimming (swimming the English channel being a well known version of this). Enduring cold and starvation in general. Note however that this is only true if you exclude pregnant women.