Maybe women have better sense than to get involved in sports that can outright kill you (autoracing, for example) while men seem driven to do so.
Also, I agree with a previous post in that girls are encouraged less to go out and compete and win. There’s far less interest in professional women’s sports like basketball and softball, so there’s less incentive to excel beyond the amateur ranks.
That being said, I’m willing to bet that women could probably do well against men in volleyball. In fact, I’d like to see that.
I’d just like to offer the humbling and addictive sport of bowling.
That’s all.
Yes, women and men compete together at all levels (including the Olympic level) in equestrian sports: Dressage, showjumping and 3-day Eventing. On the eventing team, 2 members are actually married! (Karen & David O’Connor, the latter was an individual gold medalist in Sydney, the former part of the silver medalling Team)
What’s interesting is that women and men are about 50/50 on the highest level of English riding… but at the lower levels the sport is 98% women. It would seem that fewer men start out, but a higher percentage achieve. There is a theory about different center of balance affecting achievement in this regard (women’s center is higher, which makes them inherently less secure on the horse). I’m not sure about the validity, but its floating around out there as an explanation.
Nope - from a strength to mass ratio point of view, female gymnasts kick male gymnasts butts - it’s just that the types of routines they do aren’t designed to showcase it, whereas the men’s routines are - ‘strength’ moves are considered to manly for women to perform, but female gymnasts have no trouble, whatsoever, performing them - they just don’t tend to do it in competition. Furthermore, there are huge strenght moves done on the balance beam, dressed up to look more foo-foo.
Further, the women have better balance because they have a lower center of gravity - for one thing, the women are about 4’11", whereas the men come in around 5’5" - that 6 inches makes a big difference, as does the massive amount of weight that male gymnasts carry in their shoulders in order to support themselves.
Women would kick butt, every time. Same reason teeny, tiny women kick butt at things like rock climbing - strength to mass ratio, all the way.
I woudl think that it would be exactly the opposite with the events you mentioned. I woudl think that added muscle mass and speed would surely place a male athlete higher in the air on vaults/tumbling, and would certainly aid in strngth moves. I can’t picture Kerri Strug doing too well on the rings or the pommel horse.
Then again, I woudl see the women in this Battle Royale winning all of the uneven parallel bar competitions by default!
But the thing is, it’s not easy to excel in athletics, poker, or anything else, not to the point where you could become a millionaire. Even for the ones who eventually do get good enough to excel on that level, it takes years of practice. It’s not like anyone just starts playing poker and immediately discovers that they’re able to play it on a pro level. The difference is that there are many more men than women who play poker for fun, so there are a lot more men who eventually discover after years of developing those skills that they are able to compete professionally.
Also, while Title 9 has increased women’s participation in athletics, most of the sports they play don’t offer the opportunity to make millions, and those that do (like basketball) are the one’s where the top males will almost always have a physical advantage over the top females.
The reason gymnasts always try to lose weight is because less weight = more height when completing tricks. The female gymnasts are much smaller than the males, hence they get a lot more height - watch some men competing on the floor vs. some women - the woman go much higher (when you control for their actual height).
Secondly, female gymnasts (Kerri Strug) would have no problem whatsoever with those events. The reason I know this is because when I used to train at gymnastics, the woman had no problems with these events. Also, many of the moves that women do on the balance beam mimic moves done on the pommel horse.
If you weigh 85 or 90 lbs, supporting yourself in an iron cross isn’t nearly as hard as if you weigh 145 or 150.
That’s not to say that men would have trouble with uneven bars or balance beam, I just believe that the women would come out on top. Many of the men (boys) I used to train with agree with this statement.
Strength to mass ratio.
If it were that easy to become a millionaire, then everybody would be one. Excellence takes effort, just like rearing children, or slaving away at a job you ain’t too thrilled to do. But lots of people meet these challenges.
Faced with the choice of a mundane life or a lucrative sports career, someone with special gifts in a sport would probably try to develop those talents. If even a handful of women were gifted thusly, what stops them from breaking down barriers? There was a female kicker in college football a few years back. If she had true talent, would she turn down an NFL salary because it takes practice to develop?
I do not know the strength to mass ratios of male and female gymnasts but I think whatever the result that it may be an oversimplification. You need to consider where that strength is for the task at hand. A speedskater has enormous thighs for instance…strength is all in the legs. Male gymnasts tend to have very narrow waists and skinny (relatively) bottom halves. If you look at them they look like inverted triangles. Their top half, arms and shoulders, is where all the muscle is. This gives them and advantage on the Rings and Pommel horse…arms supporting the body so the less mass down low the better. Women tend to not have the equivalent upper body strength that men do. More of their power is focused on the lower half of the body. So women tend to be able to leap astonishing heights in floor exercises.
I am not saying female gymnasts are weak in the arms and shoulders. Doubtless they are quite strong for their body size there. I am just saying males have more focus in the upper body so the strength to mass ratio is where it is needed.
I agree women win Uneven Bars by default. 
Equestrian sports such as Dressage, and showjumping, where the size of the rider is less important.
Something where how hard you throw is less important than how WELL you throw.
eg
Darts
Bowls
Ten pin bowling
Curling
Snooker and Pool may also count.
I think you’re missing my point. Even for the people who have the potential to become great successes at their sport, this isn’t obvious right away. They have to develop their skills to a certain point before they even realize a lucrative career is a possibility for them. Maybe for something like football or basketball someone can have obvious physical traits that suggest they’d be good at it (such as being enormous), but these are the very traits that women don’t generally have as often as men. For things like poker, nascar, etc. where women should in principle be able to compete on a basically level playing field, the only way to find out you’re good at it is to do it for a while and watch your skills develop. And far fewer women than men ever take up the sport, so many of those who could be stars never find out they could make a career of it.
In a sport like rock climbing - especially competitive climbing, it’s ALL about strength to weight ratio (and skill). I have seen tiny, 85 lb. women crank way harder than significantly brawnier men. In particular the amazing Katie Brown who is only about 4’11". She is certainly an exception to the “more lower body vs. upper body” in women strength rule. The competition climbs are almost all overhanging - read heavily upper body strength. And she would cruise up these routes in her very deliberate and calculated manner. She was the clearest example strength-to-weight ratio (for climbing) that I’ve ever seen. Being strong was not enough. Maximizing strength and minimizing your weight is how you’ll fight gravity.
I saw an interview on ESPN a few years ago with the reigning champion in women’s 9-ball. The interviewer asked if she played against her husband much, who also happened to be a professional 9-ball player but not ranked anywhere near number one on the men’s side. She said, yes, they played, and he routinely beat her, because he could break so much harder than she could.
Yep - same goes for gymnasitcs - it’s just not that hard to hang in an iron cross if you only weight 85 lbs.
Also, female gymnasts are very slim hipped, and have almost no boobs to speak of (typically) - basically they look like compact versions of male gynmasts - huge upper body strength given their leg and hip size. Someone like Svetlana Horkina(tall) or Mary-Lou Reton(stocky) are the exception to the rule for sure.
Female pros use lighter balls in bowling. I’m told that because the men are stronger, they are able to get the ball to rotate more times on the way down the lane, increasing their chances for strikes. I don’t know if that means men would consistently beat women at it or not.
Stronger, larger men probably would have an edge in NASCAR. It probably takes some serious strength and endurance to control a car at that speed for that long.
John Tierney believes that guys tend to be more competitive.
He cites the example of Scrabble: though women play it more than men, almost all world champions are of the male gender.
In order to become a sumo scrabble player, one must spend time memorizing fascinating letter combinations such as, “Khat”. Sounds to me like a good way to destroy the fun of the game.
Apparently, there are more guys interested in spending their time in this manner than gals.
I think you are getting to the crux of the issue here. I believe it simply comes down to testosterone. Men have much more of it. It has been directly linked to competitiveness and aggression. This would explain why even in the sports where the lower levels are predominantly women, the top levels are predominantly men.
In general, men just have more of the body chemical that makes them want to compete and, more importantly, win. So, you have a combination of culture, which has not encouraged women to compete; and nature, which doesn’t give them as much desire to, that keep women from holding their own in the highest levels of sport.
A woman’s center of gravity is lower than a man’s, not higher. So much for that theory…
Aerobatics.
If NASCAR is a sport, then so it competitive stunt-flying.
Again, there are fewer women competing than men.
For decades there were separate men and women’s competitions. In the 1970’s the two were merged. Since then, there have been several women who have been very strong in the sport.
Supposedly, women have a slight edge over men in tolerating g forces, and a cockpit is a place where being smaller and lighter also gives some advantages as well. Which isn’t to say there are no six foot tall male aerobatic pilots (Bob Hoover comes to mind) but it’s an area where height and brute physical strength is not required to excel.
I remember a commentator saying, while I was watching the summer Olympics one year, that the only sport men and women compete in the same competition is equestrian. I was quite suprised to hear this - the example of clay shooting, in particular, came to mind as a sport that I would have expected men and women to compete equally.
I then later read somewhere that the reason why men and women don’t compete against each other in shooting type events is - wait for it - heart rates. A fit man has a lower heart rate than a fit woman. This matters, apparently, because sharp shooters actually have to time their shots to their heartbeat, as their heartbeat can disturb the accuracy of a shot. So olympic shooters actually have to be very fit! I still find that slightly hard to believe, though (both the “being fit” part, and the men vs. women thing), so can anyone confirm that story?