Men and women play against each other in croquet.
I can think of one woman who beat the male world record in a physical test.
Beryl Burton took the world 12 hour cycling record in 1967 riding 277.25 miles takng the record by 5.75.
IIRC the old record was beaten by the second placed person, Mike Macnamara whom she overtook and offered him a licquorice allsort candy on the way past.
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/riders/berylburton.html
I can definately say that event where she competed, she was often the scratch rider(meaning she was the one against which everyone was given handicap time)
I never got anywhere near her times, or her daughter either.
She was sadly unacknowledged by the UK public for the most part, and yets she was the greatest athlete these islands have ever produced, this is not hype either.
There’s a long article at Runners World online about Janet (né Jim) Furman. She’s been keeping records on her personal best times for many years. She found she lost 6 minutes off her 5K time after the sex change.
Not all the differences are training, alas.
Some interesting info to add to the discussion:
Apparently not. It would seem that experts still think there is a sociological factor affecting female athletes.
I know women are also more prone to ACL type injuries than men as well.
And from another CITE:
Um, Cardinal denied that sociological factors were the sole limitations, not that they didn’t play an effect at all.
I’m not sure what methodology would ably give us a decent sense of the proportional influence of socialization, hormonal-driven competitiveness and body strength.
Call me harsh, but to an extent that’s a reflection of the truth. Private Eye’s TV column was taking a look at some recent coverage of women’s football and the extent they’d gone to to treat it seriously and with the same kind of gravitas as men’s soccer, but with one important exception: When men are playing the expert commentators pull everyone’s performance to pieces quite mercilessly, but on this programme they seemed to treat it as a taboo subject. And this, the columnist opined, was odd, because the quality of the play would have disgraced a non-league side having a lucky outing in the FA Cup.
I once saw a “what happened next” moment featuring the final kick of the game in a women’s rugby cup final. The last kick was a penalty and it needed to go over the bar to win. It missed and as the ball bobbled around in the in-goal area, the defenders all hugged and kissed each other in celebration… while the other side’s wing threequarter chased down the kick and dotted it down for a try. :smack: You’d chastise a team of schoolboys for that kind of mistake, never mind a top club side.
reiterates: “the plural of anecdote is not data”.
The thing is, a lot of “men’s” sports don’t disallow women from playing. You use golf as an example, and I’m sure you know that female golfers have played with the men. Female golfers have beaten male golfers.
The opposite, however, is not true. Women’s sports never allow men to play.
It’s kind of true that there are “sports”, and “women’s sports.”
I see at least two explanations. First, I’m guessing very few American women watch women’s soccer.
Second, I think many potential viewers don’t watch women’s sports on television because, unconsciously, they typically equate women’s performance with second- (or third) rate athletics. Why watch a female: (1) run a 100-meter dash (2) play basketball (3) through the javelin (4) pole vault when her performance pales next to those of the world’s top male athletes? In some events, it’s akin to watching the world’s top men performing against third-tier men, though the latter are women. In short, why watch a junior varsity performance (dressed as world class) when you can watch the real thing?
I certainly see and appreciate the power, speed, finesse and beauty in women’s athletics, but I think many men and women do not, and partly for reasons cited above.
alice_in_wonderland wrote
I’m doubtful of this. In my experience, women don’t excel in mass-related exercises such as pushups or pullups. Do you have a cite?
I too find this VERY hard to believe. It’s common knowledge that a fit woman’s body fat percentage might be over double a fit man’s. I even had a woman tell me that her period stopped when she got under something like 15%, whereas a 10% man will just look flat-stomached, not especially cut.
http://www.globalpinoy.com/
Women need at least 10 to 12 percent of their body weight to be composed of essential fat while men need 2 to 4 percent. Women have a higher requirement because of the demands of childbearing. Although some women are exceptions, menstruation and ovulation usually stop when a woman’s body fat drops below 15 percent.
If Alice_In_Wonderland is correct, the explanation might hinge on the term “women.” By and large, world-class female gymnasts are girls, whose body fat is much lower than a woman’s. Factor in their athleticism and she might be right about mass to weight ratio. That said, I wonder how well properly trained 14-year-old boys might compete in the same events against 14-year-old girls. About halfway through her posts, AIW seemed to drop the term “women” and started using the more accurate “female,” when referring to these gymnasts. Essentially, however, she is comparing apples and oranges. The men’s events–pommel, rings, etc–require tremendous raw strength. FWIW, I doubt the poster’s claims that girl gymnasts can execute an iron cross on the rings, or do the other highly technical, strength moves of that event. I also wonder about girls jumping higher than the men on the floor exercises. AIW says they do jump higher, in proportion to their relative heights. Not sure about that, but Olympic male skaters jump much higher than their female counterparts. I too would like cites, but still hold the girl gymnasts in awe. Remember, however, that the “grace” one sees in the girl gymnasts differs from what we see in the men. Were a male gymnast to exhibit similar graceful moves, I think judges would deem them too effiminate so, again, apples and oranges.
Very few American women watch any sports, much less women’s sports. (In comparison to men watching sports, obviously.)
I don’t think it’s unconscious at all…I think it is quite obviously the case. One anecdote from just yesterday:
I was watching that crapfest movie Wimbledon, with Kirsten Dunst. It was pissing me off to no end how feeble the shots were in the men’s matches as depicted in the movie. I got the jones to watch some real, world-class tennis, when I remembered that the actual Wimbledon men’s final was on. Doh! So I tuned in. Unfortunately, Federer had already owned Roddick, so they were rebroadcasting the women’s final. Great match! I was riveted. Now, I’m a big fan of women’s tennis, and was thoroughly impressed with the match. However, the whole time I was annoyed because my jones to watch world-class tennis was not slated in the least. I wanted to see 130+ mph serves, not 106. I wanted to see devastating returns, not just long volleys followed by a precision winner. (Those are great too, I just wanted to see power, because that godawful movie depicted men’s pro shots to be as weak as what I would hit, and I suck.)
Women’s sports, to me, are basically all about ogling the hot chicks. When I want to see the best competition, I tune into the men’s sports. I have a hunch I’m not alone in this. Women may not like this attitude, as it tends to lavish attention on stars like Kournikova, but until they tune in themselves, (or even care at all), they really have no basis for complaint. If men stopped ogling women tennis players, there would cease to be televised women’s tennis.
As do I, but it’s always at the cost of “the best”. I don’t watch college sports either, for the same reason: The best are in the pros.
Regarding the OP, Danica Patrick and others have demonstrated that motorsports are gender neutral. This is likely an obvious no-brainer for most people. (The motors do the work, not the people.)
Men do not only have a muscle advantage over women, btw. Men have larger capacity lungs, a larger airway (the voice changes in puberty as the airway expands), and IIRC a larger, more powerful heart. Men evolved to be better athletes, plain and simple.
Being GQ, I’d like to see any cites that could clear up the following disparity from the first page:
I could easily believe either assertion; I watch women’s billiards much more than men’s. (I just don’t care about competitive billiards, but some of the women are hot.) The women I’ve seen rock the house, so I could believe they might sweep the field. But having a harder break (and having that be an advantage) sounds plausible to me. (I could chalk it up to false modesty on her part, but it does sound reasonable.)
I could easily believe the girl’s gymnasts being just as good as the men at men’s routines. I mean, no matter how much smaller your muscle mass is, just how hard is an 80 pound iron cross? In regards to the rock climbing, women have many advantages, but men have some as well. Men are taller and have a longer reach, so can use more holds than women. In the Naked Ape series, rockclimbing was the go-to metaphor for the differences between the genders: different but equal. Women are more flexible and lighter, but men are stronger and have better reach.
Women USED to compete directly with men in shooting events at the Olympics. One reason I remember this so clearly is that, at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, an American man and an American woman tied for the best score in riflery. Both of them wanted to have a playoff to determine thje gold meda lwinner, but the rules didn’t allow that. The rules already provided for a tie-breaking procedure, and the rules said the man won.
However, the “winner” didn’t think that was fair, and I remember clearly that, during the playing of the national anthem, he had the woman stand next to him on the winner’s part of the podium (NOT on the silver medal winner’s spot), and they both held the gold medal that he felt they both deserved.
A classy move, I thought.
I don’t remember their names, and I don’t have a reference book to look it up… but I’m sure SOMEONE can take the information I’ve provided and find out who they were.
They may play on mixed teams at some levels, but at the major competitive levels, such as at the Olympics they are separated.
Thanks for the correction, PastAllReason.
No problem. As a Canadian, I feel duty bound to encourage curling spectating. Prepare to be assimilated.
Yes, but where the rubber hits the grit (or whatever), the top women simply have not climbed at the same level as the top men - on any type of climbing, even slab and crack. Now, the top women are truly awesome, but they are not at the same level as the men - and I predict they will never get there. Plus, even in cutting edge climbing there is a need for finger / forearm strength (or power endurance) which women do not have to the same degree as men.
In fact, she would be about 2 miles behind a top male marathon runner. Radcliffe’s world record for the marathon is 2hr15, whereas the male best is c.2hr04. She would beat very many top men, but not the elites.