PDA

View Full Version : Women? Why can't they hang with the men?


PROG8R
02-09-2006, 12:22 PM
Watching the women play pool (with the exception to the rule ((maybe 10 female players))) is like watching a bunch of B+ or A- level players play. Ga Young, Allison, and Karen are definitely the exceptions. After that you have Helena, Monica, Kelly, Janet, Gerda, and then the power curve falls off so fast its ridiculous.

You can't say men have been doing it longer. Overall? sure, but then what? Karen and Allison have probably been playing pool as long as Corey D, or Kid D, have been alive.
I don't get it, I may never get it, I am sure that the women can hit a cueball as hard as it ever has to be hit, so it isn't a power issue (unless it's the break), why are men so dominant over the women?

Any IDEAS?

JoeyInCali
02-09-2006, 12:35 PM
It's all about the mojo.

Jaden
02-09-2006, 12:36 PM
Watching the women play pool (with the exception to the rule ((maybe 10 female players))) is like watching a bunch of B+ or A- level players play. Ga Young, Allison, and Karen are definitely the exceptions. After that you have Helena, Monica, Kelly, Janet, Gerda, and then the power curve falls off so fast its ridiculous.

You can't say men have been doing it longer. Overall? sure, but then what? Karen and Allison have probably been playing pool as long as Corey D, or Kid D, have been alive.
I don't get it, I may never get it, I am sure that the women can hit a cueball as hard as it ever has to be hit, so it isn't a power issue (unless it's the break), why are men so dominant over the women?

Any IDEAS?


well, I think that power does have a little bit to do with it. I mean no offense here, Angel, you are a great player.

When I was waiting for my next match at the Swanee memorial me and my friend were watching the match between Angelina Paglia and Mike Massey from up above and I ended up making ten dollars off of him because there were two instances where either one of us would have been out 90% of the time that my friend(who has a crush on her) thought that Angel should have been out. He bet me five dollars on teh first rack that she would be out and I told him that she would mess up shape coming off the four to the five and miss the five, which sure emough she did. Then in a following rack he bet me double or nothing that she would get out THAT time. I called the exact way that she would miss AGAIN. So he owes me $10 and he gave up. Afterward we were talking about the exact same thing you are saying here that some of the female pros are barely A- players compared to the men.

Not saying that you are Angel, and in her defense those were extremely tight tables and the shots she missed were difficult shots, not easy by any stretch of the imagination. It was just that when faced with shape off of shots that require a hard stroke it seems that it's difficult for the women to keep their strokes straight. That may be it or it could be something else... Who knows?

ribdoner
02-09-2006, 01:06 PM
Watching the women play pool (with the exception to the rule ((maybe 10 female players))) is like watching a bunch of B+ or A- level players play. Ga Young, Allison, and Karen are definitely the exceptions. After that you have Helena, Monica, Kelly, Janet, Gerda, and then the power curve falls off so fast its ridiculous.

You can't say men have been doing it longer. Overall? sure, but then what? Karen and Allison have probably been playing pool as long as Corey D, or Kid D, have been alive.
I don't get it, I may never get it, I am sure that the women can hit a cueball as hard as it ever has to be hit, so it isn't a power issue (unless it's the break), why are men so dominant over the women?

Any IDEAS?
A chain of thought thats gaining momentum is that the dumber/mo ignorant you are the better you play cause you don't know how hard it is. Lets take squirt for example....men,as a rule, just know it happens. They don't try to control it. It's intuitive and when it feels right you let it rip. Women,on the other hand, are very much into control. They obsess with when,why and how much. They tend to be surprised when it doesn't happen. At this point women are just to bright, introspective and analytical to crash the top ten.
Most women do have an advantage in terms of selecting equipment...they're especialy skilled at identifing good wood. :confused:

Jimmy M.
02-09-2006, 01:11 PM
Woman? Why can't they hang with the men?

Umm ... nothing to "hang"? :)

tom haney
02-09-2006, 01:17 PM
A chain of thought thats gaining momentum is that the dumber/mo ignorant you are the better you play cause you don't know how hard it is. Lets take squirt for example....men,as a rule, just know it happens. They don't try to control it. It's intuitive and when it feels right you let it rip. Women,on the other hand, are very much into control. They obsess with when,why and how much. They tend to be surprised when it doesn't happen. At this point women are just to bright, introspective and analytical to crash the top ten.
Most women do have an advantage in terms of selecting equipment...they're especialy skilled at identifing good wood. :confused:

Good points. Plus we have more balls than they do.

PROG8R
02-09-2006, 01:29 PM
Paralysis by analysis?

Snapshot9
02-09-2006, 01:41 PM
The better a woman gets, the more her mindset for the game becomes like a man's mindset when playing pool. More men grasp the concepts and can execute them quicker than women. Women are not as coordinated as men and able to quickly adjust for speed as men. If you tell a man to hit the shot with a light medium hit, he catches on pretty quick (from other sports experience perhaps), you tell that to a woman, and she doesn't know what that means. You can tell a man about to shoot an almost straight in shot to follow with lots of top right english to spin the cueball to the other side of the table, and he grasps what for. You tell that to a woman, and she will say she can't do it, or would rather just stop it, and take a much more extreme angle on the next shot. (which she misses). Men are required within our lifestyles to react more quickly and with precision than women. Many men imagine all kinds of situations and how they will react to them, women simply react to them they way they feel at the time.

This is in general, and of course there are exceptions to each gender.

Steve Lipsky
02-09-2006, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=PROG8R]
You can't say men have been doing it longer. Overall? sure, but then what? Karen and Allison have probably been playing pool as long as Corey D, or Kid D, have been alive.

[QUOTE]

You've kind of answered your own question. You brought up two women players that have been playing forever, and they are monsters who almost never miss. So you've established that at least some women who have played their whole lives play at a top, top level.

If you want to counter that they don't play as well as, say, Johnny, then allow me to say that neither does Shannon Daulton. Both Johnny and Shannon have been playing forever, and both are men. Why can't Shannon play as well as Johnny? Well, because Johnny probably has a hair more talent/knowledge/etc. that allows him to play a little better.

So.... if assuming you've played for pretty much your whole life, it's now only a question of minute differences in talent as to who plays better, then wouldn't it follow that the group with the larger universe of people to start with (men) would produce the one or two outliers with the greatest talent?

You could continue this line of reasoning by saying that clearly non-black players are better at pool than blacks. Right? Oh wait... hmmmm.... maybe the universe of pool players in the non-black group is so much larger, that it is completely obvious which group will have produced greater overall players.

And to prove that the outliers can come from anywhere, there are those who claim that James Evans (a black player) was the best there ever was. And he came from the group with the much smaller starting universe.

- Steve

Godfather
02-09-2006, 02:01 PM
This issue is two parts to me. One is purely a cultural issue. There aren't as many women playing pool and they don't need to be as good to become 'world class.' I'm a tennis player and when Martina Hingis was number one in the world at about fifteen years old, she only practiced about two hours a day. Why would she work harder; she's the best in the world? No male player could get away with that. It's the same in pool. For us to have a chance we've got to play like six-eight hours a day for years and they don't. Why should they work harder? Maybe a co-ed tour like the IPT will make a difference.

The other factor is one of pschological make-up. I played pool for a living for a couple years and lived out of a van when I started. I've played for my last dollar and my food money many times. This is a situation that can't be simulated and I know many other men who have done similar things. I can't think of any women that have put themselves through that. My understanding is that most women have more of a need for security then men do and so don't put themselves in a position where they could lose everything. Maybe men have less fear on the table because of that.

papercut
02-09-2006, 02:11 PM
Two sample populations with normal distributions, X and Y.

X has 1,000 people.
Y has 1,000,000 people.

The 99% confidence interval (let's say this represents the pros) are the elite cream of the crop in a population. In X, there will be 10 people. In Y, there will be 10,000 people.

Re-rank the elite. The elite of the elite.... In X there will be 0. In Y there will be 100.

Ignoring physical and psychological differences (of which there are plenty), it really just boils down to statistics. X are women, Y are men. More players in a population, better elite.

I'm just reiterating what others have said before...

Jaden
02-09-2006, 02:16 PM
Two sample populations with normal distributions, X and Y.

X has 1,000 people.
Y has 1,000,000 people.

The 99% confidence interval (let's say this represents the pros) are the elite cream of the crop in a population. In X, there will be 10 people. In Y, there will be 10,000 people.

Re-rank the elite. The elite of the elite.... In X there will be 0. In Y there will be 100.

Ignoring physical and psychological differences (of which there are plenty), it really just boils down to statistics. X are women, Y are men. More players in a population, better elite.

I'm just reiterating what others have said before...
Statistics only explains the numbers of better players, not the caliber of players, for a given population, the top of the game should still be the top of the gameu unless the disparity in knowledge or undeerlying mechanisms differ.. That would be like saying that a state with 1/10 the population of another state cannot produce a top ranked player because there aren't as many people playing in that state.

If the top female pros play on keel with the top male pros then why don't they do well in the open tournaments? because there are less of them? not likely....

Cameron Smith
02-09-2006, 02:19 PM
I think saying that women have physiological inferier components that don't allow them perform as well as the men, is B.S. The fact that Alex Pagualyan has such a powerful break shows that women wouldn't have such a hard time in that department. All it requires is good fundamentals. Furthermore I have taught many women who have picked up the concepts far quicker than any man. So don't try to infer that men are more intelligent or far better at understanding concepts, because that is ridiculous.

You can not forget that women have only been allowed in pool halls for a short amount of time. Furthermore it has been an even shorter amount of time since the first womens pro tour was establish. When you learn to play any sport you tend to have a certain idol in mind, you try to equal and or surpass that idol. Most girls learning to play will look at Ewa, Allison, Karen etc, as their hero's. Not very many will idolize Earl Strickland or Johnny Archer, they probably won't be able to relate. Its the same reason why I don't idolize Allison Fischer. I have a lot of respect for her, but Steve Davis is my hero.

As women learn to play they will eventually make their way into the pro ranks, and their abilities increase due to the competition. But here is the thing. It is difficult to keep evolving as a player if you don't keep taking the next step. A B player will probably stagnate if he/she does not attempt to move up and play A players. They may be a great B player, and do very well in competition but they will plateau. If these girls don't have anywhere else to go, if they are already in the pro ranks, then they will stagnate as well. Competition evolves, and so do the players. But with Karen and Allison in mix and dominating, it will force the competetors to get better in order to compete. No proffessional athlete or sportsman is able to accept being an also-ran.

Annika Sorennstein (sp?) was the first woman to average a 67 in golf, now its common. She still dominates but her competition is getting better. Tiger Woods was untouchable when he burst onto the scene, it caused players to practice and get better. As a result of these two, the standard of golf is better than it ever has been. As a result of the top women players in pool, the standard is getting better and better.

One last thing that may have slowed the growth of womens pool. SJM pointed out to me that for every woman who dedicates herself to pool, there are 50 men who do so. With such a small talent pool (:D), there is less oppurtunity for someone the caliber of Strickland or Reyes.

Anyways thats my theory.

papercut
02-09-2006, 02:31 PM
Statistics only explains the numbers of better players, not the caliber of players, for a given population, the top of the game should still be the top of the gameu unless the disparity in knowledge or undeerlying mechanisms differ.. That would be like saying that a state with 1/10 the population of another state cannot produce a top ranked player because there aren't as many people playing in that state.

If the top female pros play on keel with the top male pros then why don't they do well in the open tournaments? because there are less of them? not likely....

You have a pool of 100 people, X.
You have a pool of 1000000 people, Y.

You're telling me you don't think the top 5 Y players will be better than the top 5 X players (and yes, I agree that there would be more, in quantity, in the tail in population Y)? More data, more outliers to fill the tail distribution. That 1 in a million chance player (true prodigy) is much more likely to exist in a population of 1 million than 1 thousand. Put another way, 100 prodigies are much more likely to exist in a popluation of 100 million than 100 thousand.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that I'm not sure I'm convinced I'm wrong... yet again...

Njhustler1
02-09-2006, 02:34 PM
Hasn't this topic been done to death? Even though its hard to argue because men have won most all inclusive tournaments, does it make you feel so much better to rehash this same topic to bash women players? To be honest, I get more entertainment of watching a match where people miss now and again rather than run out rack after rack after rack after rack.

Cameron Smith
02-09-2006, 02:37 PM
You're telling me you don't think the top 5 Y players will be better than the top 5 X players...

Depends on which 5.

But your right, if you randomly select 5 players from group Y and X, there is a better chance that the Y players will be better than the X, rather than vice versa. But it is not 100% cetain.

Jaden
02-09-2006, 02:42 PM
You have a pool of 100 people, X.
You have a pool of 1000000 people, Y.

You're telling me you don't think the top 5 Y players will be better than the top 5 X players (and yes, I agree that there would be more, in quantity, in the tail in population Y)? More data, more outliers to fill the tail distribution. That 1 in a million chance player (true prodigy) is much more likely to exist in a population of 1 million than 1 thousand. Put another way, 100 prodigies are much more likely to exist in a popluation of 100 million than 100 thousand.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that I'm not sure I'm convinced I'm wrong... yet again...

I'm not saying that your wrong per say, just that when you get toward the top of the game there is a limit as to having a greater pool producing better players, and in this instance it is likely that there are other factors involved beyond just that, and besides I doubt that would give any comfort to the top females even if it is the case.


And as to this being done to death, ah who cares one way or the other but this is an open forum, and if someone wants to talk about this whatever, I'll throw in my two cents worth and any stories I may have that are pertenant whatever the situation or byline.

Jaden
02-09-2006, 02:50 PM
Depends on which 5.

But your right, if you randomly select 5 players from group Y and X, there is a better chance that the Y players will be better than the X, rather than vice versa. But it is not 100% cetain.


No he was saying if you take the best 5 y players and the best 5 x players which five will be better? And the answer is it depends on whether the disparity between them is solely their numbers or if there is an inherent difference in other ways as well. If the larger numbers creates greater access to knowledge quality of practice materials etc, then yes.. otherwise no. The best should not be contingent upon the greater numbers so long as the sample is large enough to not be ridiculous....

Now if you were take a group of 1000 and a group of ten and give them access to the same tools and training then there is a good liklihood that the top 5 of the 1000 will be better than the top five of the ten. But in the numbers that we're talking about here, I don't think that that is a factor.

bruin70
02-09-2006, 03:15 PM
Paralysis by analysis?

you absolutely nailed it

predator
02-09-2006, 03:41 PM
The answer is simple. Girls just don't have the hand/eye coordination of boys, therefore weaker stroke. Power strokes are not about physical power of the muscles...it's about control and finesse at high cue speeds. I can't imagine ladies breaking like Pagulayan or drawing the cue ball like Deuel. Most of pro level men have control in a stroke that is way ahead of any woman.

Jimmy M.
02-09-2006, 03:59 PM
Two sample populations with normal distributions, X and Y.

X has 1,000 people.
Y has 1,000,000 people.

The 99% confidence interval (let's say this represents the pros) are the elite cream of the crop in a population. In X, there will be 10 people. In Y, there will be 10,000 people.

Re-rank the elite. The elite of the elite.... In X there will be 0. In Y there will be 100.

Ignoring physical and psychological differences (of which there are plenty), it really just boils down to statistics. X are women, Y are men. More players in a population, better elite.

I'm just reiterating what others have said before...

This is definitely the standard "Politically Correct" answer. :)

Oh, yeah, "imo".

bruin70
02-09-2006, 04:38 PM
Two sample populations with normal distributions, X and Y.

X has 1,000 people.
Y has 1,000,000 people.

The 99% confidence interval (let's say this represents the pros) are the elite cream of the crop in a population. In X, there will be 10 people. In Y, there will be 10,000 people.

Re-rank the elite. The elite of the elite.... In X there will be 0. In Y there will be 100.

Ignoring physical and psychological differences (of which there are plenty), it really just boils down to statistics. X are women, Y are men. More players in a population, better elite.

I'm just reiterating what others have said before...


i don't like the assumption.
is your assumption then that if there were an equal number of women playing pool as men, that there would be a concomitant number of women better than allison or karen. ie,,,if allison and karen were to play in a TOP, let me reiterate,,TOP,,,,not open, but TOP additional 62 men and they were all to play a 126 game schedule, and assuming the gals came in 48th and 49th,,,then if the pool of women were equal to men, and you had the top 64 men playing with the top 64 women, that the final standings would show an equal spread ,,,that the top 64 would not be men-heavy, and that if kk and af were 48th and 49th, that there would be another 24 women placing better than them?

more does not mean better, nor does it mean more better., because for all we know, and this assumption is as valid as yours,,,af and kk may be as good as the women can get.

another point is that your volume reasoning is only valid if women were equal to men to begin with,,,,yet this is the very point of contention in the first place. ie, why does california have more better men players than rhode island. california has a larger population and therefore will produce more better players. you can only make this assertion because men are equal to men. if california was a state full of women players, it doesn't mean california will have better players than rhode island just because there are more players

cuetechasaurus
02-09-2006, 06:04 PM
well, I think that power does have a little bit to do with it. I mean no offense here, Angel, you are a great player.

When I was waiting for my next match at the Swanee memorial me and my friend were watching the match between Angelina Paglia and Mike Massey from up above and I ended up making ten dollars off of him because there were two instances where either one of us would have been out 90% of the time that my friend(who has a crush on her) thought that Angel should have been out. He bet me five dollars on teh first rack that she would be out and I told him that she would mess up shape coming off the four to the five and miss the five, which sure emough she did. Then in a following rack he bet me double or nothing that she would get out THAT time. I called the exact way that she would miss AGAIN. So he owes me $10 and he gave up. Afterward we were talking about the exact same thing you are saying here that some of the female pros are barely A- players compared to the men.

Not saying that you are Angel, and in her defense those were extremely tight tables and the shots she missed were difficult shots, not easy by any stretch of the imagination. It was just that when faced with shape off of shots that require a hard stroke it seems that it's difficult for the women to keep their strokes straight. That may be it or it could be something else... Who knows?

And how well did YOU do at the Swanee?

Cameron Smith
02-09-2006, 07:07 PM
No he was saying if you take the best 5 y players and the best 5 x players which five will be better? And the answer is it depends on whether the disparity between them is solely their numbers or if there is an inherent difference in other ways as well. If the larger numbers creates greater access to knowledge quality of practice materials etc, then yes.. otherwise no. The best should not be contingent upon the greater numbers so long as the sample is large enough to not be ridiculous....

Now if you were take a group of 1000 and a group of ten and give them access to the same tools and training then there is a good liklihood that the top 5 of the 1000 will be better than the top five of the ten. But in the numbers that we're talking about here, I don't think that that is a factor.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

oops i guess I didnt read too closely

sjm
02-09-2006, 07:18 PM
Nice job by papercut in this thread of explaining the math and statistics. Certainly, this is a big part of the story.

Nonetheless, if one is to accept the "numbers" argument in full, one must buy into the notion that if as many women played the game as men and they practiced just as hard as men (allow me to take the break out of the equation for a moment), about 50% of the top players would be female. I can't buy into that ... at least not yet.

Rather than recounting the superb points already made in this thread, I'll consider another angle.

One thing that I truly believe holds many women back is all the inaccurate feedback they get about their games from men. I'll bet every woman that's ever reached the WPBA's #25 ranking has been told at least once that cracking the Top 10 was something they could achieve with a little fine tuning and without substantial improvement, when the message that ought to be delivered is how very difficult such a goal is to achieve and how much more knowledge and hard work are needed to get there.

It is an unfortunate reality that the average man heaps limitless praise on a woman that reaches even "C+" level, not realizing that such a player surely needs five games on the wire going to nine to have even action with a Karen Corr or an Allison Fisher.

Of course, the women are to blame for all this just for being so lovely! That's why us guys are so quick to patronize them. Shame on us!

Cameron Smith
02-09-2006, 07:41 PM
One thing that I truly believe holds many women back is all the inaccurate feedback they get about their games from men. I'll bet every woman that's ever reached the WPBA's #25 ranking has been told at least once that cracking the Top 10 was something they could achieve with a little fine tuning and without substantial improvement, when the message that ought to be delivered is how very difficult such a goal is to achieve and how much more knowledge and hard work are needed to get there.

It is an unfortunate reality that the average man heaps limitless praise on a woman that reaches even "C+" level, not realizing that such a player surely needs five games on the wire going to nine to have even action with a Karen Corr or an Allison Fisher.

Of course, the women are to blame for all this just for being so lovely! That's why us guys are so quick to patronize them. Shame on us!

Interesting theory but it assumes that women are inherently nieve. Some are, but of course so are some men. So we end up even once more.

pokerhammer
02-09-2006, 07:42 PM
I think its just that guys are better than girls at any sport. Its part genetics, part heart and passion, and part mental. Men just exhibit these more so than women. You can't make a person be competitive, either he/she is or isn't and far more "he's" are very competitive compared to the "she's".

CoolChicky
02-09-2006, 07:50 PM
I believe it's because of testosterone which men have more of -- it's what gives them their killer instinct. True, some women posses this instinct also but as a rule it is a male trait.

Pool halls can be an intimidating and hostile environment for women, especially attractive ones. Personally, I'd rather go shopping than go to a pool room -- only kidding!

papercut
02-09-2006, 07:57 PM
Nice job by papercut in this thread of explaining the math and statistics. Certainly, this is a big part of the story.

Nonetheless, if one is to accept the "numbers" argument in full, one must buy into the notion that if as many women played the game as men and they practiced just as hard as men (allow me to take the break out of the equation for a moment), about 50% of the top players would be female. I can't buy into that ... at least not yet.

Rather than recounting the superb points already made in this thread, I'll consider another angle.

One thing that I truly believe holds many women back is all the inaccurate feedback they get about their games from men. I'll bet every woman that's ever reached the WPBA's #25 ranking has been told at least once that cracking the Top 10 was something they could achieve with a little fine tuning and without substantial improvement, when the message that ought to be delivered is how very difficult such a goal is to achieve and how much more knowledge and hard work are needed to get there.

It is an unfortunate reality that the average man heaps limitless praise on a woman that reaches even "C+" level, not realizing that such a player surely needs five games on the wire going to nine to have even action with a Karen Corr or an Allison Fisher.

Of course, the women are to blame for all this just for being so lovely! That's why us guys are so quick to patronize them. Shame on us!

Honestly, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Pure numbers are a part of it, but even in cases where I see absolute beginners in both men and women, it isn't long before you see a disparity in the ability. Excellent pool is more than being lucky enough to have some positive genetic mutation that allows one to be a billiard prodigy (as would likely to occur in larger populations). Society is a factor. From what I've observed, society feeds a woman's ego much more than a comparable man. Inflated ego certainly isn't going to encourage a burning desire for further improvement! Let's face it...our desires to improve are to feed our egos... doesn't that feel good? And yes, physical and mental differences play a role. There I go babbling again...

Cameron Smith
02-09-2006, 07:59 PM
I think its just that guys are better than girls at any sport. Its part genetics, part heart and passion, and part mental. Men just exhibit these more so than women. You can't make a person be competitive, either he/she is or isn't and far more "he's" are very competitive compared to the "she's".

This doesnt explain why women do well in poker tournaments. Or do you think that the luck factor kicks in when their heart, passion and competitiveness gives out.

I know lots of women that are competitive, that hate to lose. Part of the problem is that we are still a male dominated society, and although we edging closer towards equality we are no where near there. Alot of Women still have the "I just want to beat the boys mentality". Girls need to be taught that no matter what the discipline women are not inferior.

djp2k6
02-09-2006, 10:48 PM
Here is an excerpt from an article I found online. The link is below. I think this answers the question.

One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones.

On the other hand, women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation, verbal language and carrying out detailed and pre-planned tasks. For example, women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men (13).

The "father" of sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, of Harvard University (10), said that human females tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills, social skills and security-seeking, among other things, while men tend to be higher in independence, dominance, spatial and mathematical skills, rank-related aggression, and other characteristics.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html

Godfather
02-09-2006, 11:03 PM
This doesnt explain why women do well in poker tournaments. Or do you think that the luck factor kicks in when their heart, passion and competitiveness gives out.

I know lots of women that are competitive, that hate to lose. Part of the problem is that we are still a male dominated society, and although we edging closer towards equality we are no where near there. Alot of Women still have the "I just want to beat the boys mentality". Girls need to be taught that no matter what the discipline women are not inferior.

Most people understand that women are not inferior as human beings or in 'God's eyes,' however you want to put it. To make a claim that women are just as capable as men at excelling at ANY discipline is ludicrous. In sports, in general, there is no comparison. There are physical and physiological differences. The physical ones are obvious and the book is still out a little on the psychological ones. It's a proven fact that men and women use different parts of their brains to solve the same problems, so we obviously think differently. There may be areas in which this gives women an advantage, but sports is not one of them.

jay helfert
02-09-2006, 11:18 PM
I for one am not so sure. Look at the breakthroughs women are making in other sports in head to head competition against men. Their day is coming.
I say there is no mental or physical reason why a woman can't play pool as good as a man. There are probably more good men players than women only because so many more men are playing.
I can remember when Jean Balukas started playing in men's events in the 80's. I watched her beat among others Mike Lebron (reigning U.S. Open champ at the time, Keith, Buddy and many other top men players. She began to do so well that several men either refused to play her or play in events she was entered in. This included more than one current member of the HOF.
My belief is that if the top 10-20 women played regularly against the men over a long enough period of time (maybe a year or two on an integrated tour - the IPT?), you will see women making breakthroughs and perhaps even winning. Excuse me but hasn't Karen already won events on the very tough Joss Tour.
Like all of you, I still think the world's best players are people like Johnny,
Ralf, Earl, Mika, Thorsten and about a dozen filipinos. But somewhere out there may be some young girl who aspires to play on the WPBA, and doesn't know she isn't supposed to be as good as a man at Pool. And you know what, she may be right!
I see some amazingly talented young women on that tour right now, only lacking in experience. Pool is the most likely sport where men and women can compete on equal terms, with no handicaps whatsoever, and for that reason may yet become quite popular as a spectator sport. KT is on the right track.

Godfather
02-09-2006, 11:31 PM
What breakthroughs in other sports are you talking about, Jay? I agree that women have a much better chance of playing even with men in a sport or game like pool, chess, bowling or something where the physical differences are mitigated. I was merely responding to the post that they could be equal in any discipline. I can't imagine a woman beating the male world record holder in, say, a foot race.

jay helfert
02-09-2006, 11:44 PM
What breakthroughs in other sports are you talking about, Jay? I agree that women have a much better chance of playing even with men in a sport or game like pool, chess, bowling or something where the physical differences are mitigated. I was merely responding to the post that they could be equal in any discipline. I can't imagine a woman beating the male world record holder in, say, a foot race.

The breakthroughs I'm talking about is the fact that they are starting to compete on equal terms, in golf tournaments for instance. And Danica Patrick in racing has opened everyones eyes. I know they haven't done that well yet, but they are up to the challenge, and that bodes well for the future. Who knows how good Michelle Wie is going to be?
My point is that Pool is unique among sports in that we may see a woman champion far sooner than in other sports. Hell, for all we know, men may be the inferior sex in another hundred years in all sports.
I remember as a young man, we would never see a lady police officer or heaven forbid, a woman in the military. As someone once said, "The times, they are a changin'." If you don't recognize that son, you haven't been paying attention.

Godfather
02-09-2006, 11:52 PM
The breakthroughs I'm talking about is the fact that they are starting to compete on equal terms, in golf tournaments for instance. And Danica Patrick in racing has opened everyones eyes. I know they haven't done that well yet, but they are up to the challenge, and that bodes well for the future. Who knows how good Michelle Wie is going to be?
My point is that Pool is unique among sports in that we may see a woman champion far sooner than in other sports. Hell, for all we know, men may be the inferior sex in another hundred years in all sports.
I remember as a young man, we would never see a lady police officer or heaven forbid, a woman in the military. As someone once said, "The times, they are a changin'." If you don't recognize that son, you haven't been paying attention.

OK, Jay, I concede your points. I will still maintain there are some sports that they can't physically catch up. They have shown that women are incapable of developing equal upper body strength to men and that would make a difference in many sports. My very first post in this thread, states that I believe the discrepancy in pool to be mostly a social issue. And I have been paying attention a little, dad.:)

rackmsuckr
02-10-2006, 01:21 AM
Maybe it's a male's innate confidence, the swagger, the 'cock of the walk', while we females are just 'chicken'! :p

catscradle
02-10-2006, 05:19 AM
Maybe it's a male's innate confidence, the swagger, the 'cock of the walk', while we females are just 'chicken'! :p

Absolutely great picture!!!!
Personally, I'm sick of this topic. It has been beat to death in the past. Anybody interested can probably find my opinion in the old threads somewhere.

tedkaufman
02-10-2006, 07:40 AM
I've wondered myself why women have not reached comparable levels to men in pool. There really isn't any physical reason, with the possible exception of men being physically stronger, which could have an impact on breaking.

But when you get right down to it, the average female pro does not play position as well or play patterns as well as the top male players, nor do they handle stress as well. Allison is the notable exception. Her patterns and position play are superb and she is very cool under pressure.

So I think part of the difference is simply excecution and part it is creative vision, or conceptualizing geometric possibilities.

Now why this should be different escapes me. It's not that men are inherently stronger, smarter, more predatory, or any of the other commonly offered reasons.

I think the biggest reason, at least what I have observed most frequently, is how females and males differ in the processing of stress. Women tend to react more emotionally to stress, or more specifically--distress. Men tend to grit and bear it. That's what we're trained to do. Males are expected to "get it done."

Consider how we males might react to a male friend or teammate missing the 9 because of poor position on the 8. We don't tend to offer condolences, or if we do, it's pretty contrite. More often, we're saying or at least thinking, 'Well, you shouldn't have screwed up position on the 8.'

Women are far more empathic. They will attempt to soothe another woman's feelings. Males, if we offer anything more than "too bad," or "tough luck," will suggest how to fix it so it doesn't happen again.

What is boils down to is, women are soothers by nature; men are fixers. I think men feel compelled to find solutions because failing is not acceptable. Women soothe so that their counterparts don't feel bad.

Essentially, it is analytical thinking verses emotional thinking. Males tend to block out emotions and use analysis to solve problems; women tend to embrace emotions, which interfers with analytical problem solving.

9BallBust-O
02-10-2006, 07:50 AM
I think as far as it goes really its all a guess. I believe that women do not play pool as good as men - exceptions Allison Fisher - Karen Corr - Ga Young Kim - I think any of the three could hold up in any male race to 7 or 11. Honestly av race to 7 or 11 can swing one way or the next at any given second. A night of 10 hour money on the line pressure one on one gamble action I dont think they could hold up. They just dont do it. THERE is the real answer to the question of women vs men, i think.

bud green
02-10-2006, 08:21 AM
The paper today says that Deb Remmerde of Northwestern College just broke the consecutive free throw record for all organized basketball with 133 in a row. The previous record was 126.

Jaden
02-10-2006, 08:32 AM
The paper today says that Deb Remmerde of Northwestern College just broke the consecutive free throw record for all organized basketball with 133 in a row. The previous record was 126.


Free throws aren't competitive sports.....

PROG8R
02-10-2006, 08:37 AM
The paper today says that Deb Remmerde of Northwestern College just broke the consecutive free throw record for all organized basketball with 133 in a row. The previous record was 126.


http://www.sharpshooterfreethrows.com/

The Current WORLD RECORD HOLDER for CONSECUTIVE free throws with
5,221

NOT A FEMALE!!

Jaden
02-10-2006, 08:40 AM
And how well did YOU do at the Swanee?


I placed just out of the money, along with gerardo Jamito, Mike massey, and fifteen other top players...... and I only lost to Santos Sambajon and another top player...... Besides which this was my first tournament against top players and I'm not a PRO...... nervousness, and because of it, tiredness beat me.... but excuses are like a$$holes everyone's got one and they all stink. All of this is besides the point. You setup the same runouts that she had and me or my bro would have runout ninety percent of the time. And I'll be happy to wager you on that....that's the reason that my bro was willing to bet me that she'd runout because he figured that a pro should get out all of the time from there.

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 08:40 AM
http://www.sharpshooterfreethrows.com/

The Current WORLD RECORD HOLDER for CONSECUTIVE free throws with
5,221

NOT A FEMALE!!

I'm assuming the "record" mentioned meant that the record came in actual game play, over the course of several games.

The World Record that you're reporting is a free throw shooting exhibition, not a game.

Fred

jsp
02-10-2006, 08:40 AM
Free throws aren't competitive sports.....
It can be. You can say the same thing about running 133 in straight pool. What's the big difference?

bud green
02-10-2006, 08:40 AM
This was in competition, not in practice. Shooting in a college game with a crowd watching is a lot different than chillin out in the local gym.

I'd guess someone out there has made 133 three pointers in practice. Some of these people are freaks of nature I guess- 5221 in a row is ridiculous.

PROG8R
02-10-2006, 08:46 AM
I'm assuming the "record" mentioned meant that the record came in actual game play, over the course of several games.

The World Record that you're reporting is a free throw shooting exhibition, not a game.

Fred

I could not imagine it was one game how do you get fouled 68 times, and the opposing team would be fouled out, maybe over a season, but I would still put him up against her.

Jaden
02-10-2006, 08:47 AM
It can be. You can say the same thing about running 133 in straight pool. What's the big difference?


Why do think that they differentiate between runs in practice and runs in competition.....I'm not down playing the accomplishment, I know I'd be lucky to make ten(freethrows not balls in straight pool), but the question is whether women can hang in competition with men.....

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 08:47 AM
why are men so dominant over the women?

Any IDEAS?

Personally, I am sick of this question. I've joked about it's repetition like clockwork, but I think I fell of the edge last time.

This should be an FAQ. And someone should take this challenge up. Look at all the posts in this thread. Write down every point. Do not throw out or dismiss any single point. Every point (3 or 4 major points, with a half dozen or so different, but related points) that I've seen on this thread are CORRECT.

It's not just one thing, but an accumulation of several factors. That's why everyone has different opinions. Everybody has a legitimate reason.

So, the next time someone asks this question, we can just say "Check the FAQ, question #1."

I think the worst thing people can do on this question is to discount any of the reasons. For example, it might be PC to discount physical reasons, but to discount physical reasons is wrong, closed-minded, and useless to the discussion. IMO. I'm not saying physical is the only reason, but rather it's one reason that adds a percentage to the overall equation.

Fred

Jaden
02-10-2006, 08:59 AM
Personally, I am sick of this question. I've joked about it's repetition like clockwork, but I think I fell of the edge last time.

This should be an FAQ. And someone should take this challenge up. Look at all the posts in this thread. Write down every point. Do not throw out or dismiss any single point. Every point (3 or 4 major points, with a half dozen or so different, but related points) that I've seen on this thread are CORRECT.

It's not just one thing, but an accumulation of several factors. That's why everyone has different opinions. Everybody has a legitimate reason.

So, the next time someone asks this question, we can just say "Check the FAQ, question #1."

I think the worst thing people can do on this question is to discount any of the reasons. For example, it might be PC to discount physical reasons, but to discount physical reasons is wrong, closed-minded, and useless to the discussion. IMO. I'm not saying physical is the only reason, but rather it's one reason that adds a percentage to the overall equation.

Fred


Exactly Fred,

the only reason I chime in on these things so vocally when they come up, notice that I never start one, is that I'm tired of the PC Bull$h!t...... I hate all of that crap.... Yeah women are in the military, so am I and I'll tell you right now that they can't hang, thay are always getting preferential treatment with working parties with jobs (even in the same rate) and unless they're roided out they can't physically hang......It's quite pathetic and don't get me started about female cops.... I don't care if anyone thinks I'm cheauvinistic or not... I'm more of a realist than anything....Ever since the friggin sixties every sense of self ever attributed to anyone has been distorted and it has contributed to the delinquency of todays youth and overall confusion as to identities.....


Wuuhhhh, got that all out..... sorry about that I apologise about my ramblings, I just fervently believe certain things and it gets me worked up sometimes....

PROG8R
02-10-2006, 09:00 AM
I really don't care either way, I was bored and curious and felt a little mischevious so I said to myself, "self, Why not stir up some Poop and and see how bad I can get it to stink".

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 09:07 AM
I could not imagine it was one game how do you get fouled 68 times, and the opposing team would be fouled out, maybe over a season, but I would still put him up against her.

Do we have a problem here? Read my quote. It clearly says "over the course of several games."

Fred

bud green
02-10-2006, 09:14 AM
She went 22 or 23 games without a miss. I doubt she'd get anywhere near 5221 in a row in practice if she tried the rest of her life but she still broke the competitive record.

It's lot harder to shoot after running up and down the court, playing defense, getting sweaty, needing a critical free throw at the end of the game. Didn't a Seattle Supersonic player (Ricky Pierce?) almost break the NBA record a couple years ago? I think he made about 86 in a row and then clanked one off the rim. Pressure changes everything.

That 5221 still boggles my mind, though. Anyone ever heard of the golfer Moe Norman? Definately worth doing a google search on him. One site said he didn't hit a ball out of bounds for over 11 years of competition. Maybe the best ball striker in history- even better than Ben Hogan. After Rain Man came out, people who knew him figured he might be autistic because he had socialization issues but hit a golf ball so pure, every time, they figured he had "savant" level ability.

PROG8R
02-10-2006, 09:24 AM
I knew Moe Norman.
He came down to our Country club every year for the winter. No matter how hot it was out that guy always wore long sleeve shirts and always wore 2 or three rolex watches. He had more golf shoes than any man alive..LOL and a new CADILAC every 6 months. He was a very excentric man, mostly kept to himself, but once you got him talking WOW!!
Miss the old dude.. :(

pokerhammer
02-10-2006, 10:07 AM
This doesnt explain why women do well in poker tournaments. Or do you think that the luck factor kicks in when their heart, passion and competitiveness gives out.

I know lots of women that are competitive, that hate to lose. Part of the problem is that we are still a male dominated society, and although we edging closer towards equality we are no where near there. Alot of Women still have the "I just want to beat the boys mentality". Girls need to be taught that no matter what the discipline women are not inferior.


I play poker for a living and would much rather play against any of the top women (Harrman, Duke, NG, Leiber, Gowen) than against the top men, whom I consider myself one of. The women may sneak into a tourney every now and again, but by and large its the same in poker as in any other game or sport.

pokerhammer
02-10-2006, 10:16 AM
The breakthroughs I'm talking about is the fact that they are starting to compete on equal terms, in golf tournaments for instance. And Danica Patrick in racing has opened everyones eyes. I know they haven't done that well yet, but they are up to the challenge, and that bodes well for the future. Who knows how good Michelle Wie is going to be?
My point is that Pool is unique among sports in that we may see a woman champion far sooner than in other sports. Hell, for all we know, men may be the inferior sex in another hundred years in all sports.
I remember as a young man, we would never see a lady police officer or heaven forbid, a woman in the military. As someone once said, "The times, they are a changin'." If you don't recognize that son, you haven't been paying attention.


If you are referring to Annika Soremstam and (for god's sake) Michelle Wie, they can't even come close to competing with the men. Each and every week 156 players tee it up on the PGA Tour. Sorenstam and Wie can't beat any of them on a regular basis. Sure the might come in 110th and beat 40-50 players in a given week. But, in order to do so, they have to play at a very high level and they guys they do beat for 2 days have to have off days. Otherwise, they finish in the bottom 10 each and every week. As far as Michelle Wie playing in all of these different mens tourneys, I think is a shame that she is taking up someones spot that is trying to earn a living. Every time she tees it up, someone that has partial exemption status or sponsor exemption loses out on playing in that tournament. This is not the upper tier of players, but the ones that teeter on the top 125 and struggle to stay on tour and make a living. I do not think women should be allowed to compete in mens events in any sport, PERIOD. Men can't play in womens events, so why is it a double standard. It just makes no sense.

ShootingArts
02-10-2006, 10:20 AM
A lot of things have been discussed but a simple mechanical factor hasn't unless I overlooked it in my quick scan of the posts. Simply put, the average woman is smaller than the average man. Obviously, they play on the same size and height tables when competing together.

When standing the average man has a better overhead perspective of the table. He also has a reach advantage which means that in the course of a match there are fewer awkward shots that he has to attempt.

Aside from any other consideration, taller pool players with longer reach have innate advantages. Shorter players can overcome these advantages in some cases but all else being equal the taller player will win.

Hu

rackmsuckr
02-10-2006, 10:48 AM
A lot of things have been discussed but a simple mechanical factor hasn't unless I overlooked it in my quick scan of the posts. Simply put, the average woman is smaller than the average man. Obviously, they play on the same size and height tables when competing together.

When standing the average man has a better overhead perspective of the table. He also has a reach advantage which means that in the course of a match there are fewer awkward shots that he has to attempt.

Aside from any other consideration, taller pool players with longer reach have innate advantages. Shorter players can overcome these advantages in some cases but all else being equal the taller player will win.

Hu

I totally agree about the physical aspect. Even short men have more compactly bundled fast twitch muscles which allow more power per punch than a woman's. The bigger person also has a greater hand span which allows them to bridge over balls better - for jumping and obstructing balls. It also gives them a more solid plant.

I have not taken the effort to ever list the dozen reasons I see that account in the disparity between the sexes. But I do want to point out just this one time, where the short girl won...... (Kimberly Kirk - 3-time Amateur National Champion, and then WPBA 19th-ranked Kerry Hartsfield Impson. I won at the 211 Club, beating them both.)

Southpaw
02-10-2006, 10:59 AM
I think the break is the biggest factor. For example, when you see the ladies play on TV, they are playing on brand new cloth which makes it a little easier to make balls on the break plus the pockets are a little bigger too. On a table where the cloth is a little worn, you would see a huge difference because of the break. Now Allison is probably the only one that could let say have Johnny Archer break for her and have a chance to beat one of the mens top 20 players.

Southpaw

Cameron Smith
02-10-2006, 11:29 AM
If you are referring to Annika Soremstam and (for god's sake) Michelle Wie, they can't even come close to competing with the men. Each and every week 156 players tee it up on the PGA Tour. Sorenstam and Wie can't beat any of them on a regular basis. Sure the might come in 110th and beat 40-50 players in a given week. But, in order to do so, they have to play at a very high level and they guys they do beat for 2 days have to have off days. Otherwise, they finish in the bottom 10 each and every week. As far as Michelle Wie playing in all of these different mens tourneys, I think is a shame that she is taking up someones spot that is trying to earn a living. Every time she tees it up, someone that has partial exemption status or sponsor exemption loses out on playing in that tournament. This is not the upper tier of players, but the ones that teeter on the top 125 and struggle to stay on tour and make a living. I do not think women should be allowed to compete in mens events in any sport, PERIOD. Men can't play in womens events, so why is it a double standard. It just makes no sense.

Annika only made one attempt to play on the PGA tour. One sample is not enough to make an accurate judgement as to what she can or can not do. Michelle Wie, has not played with the men very often but she did very well in the mens us amatures, she will win it one day. But for god sakes shes only 17 giver her a break.

Finally the LPGA is gender specific, the PGA is not. some of the mens major events (the Masters) specifiy no women, but for the most part the PGA tour is not a gender specific tour. Even so do you want to play on the Ladies tour.

Jaden
02-10-2006, 11:43 AM
A lot of things have been discussed but a simple mechanical factor hasn't unless I overlooked it in my quick scan of the posts. Simply put, the average woman is smaller than the average man. Obviously, they play on the same size and height tables when competing together.

When standing the average man has a better overhead perspective of the table. He also has a reach advantage which means that in the course of a match there are fewer awkward shots that he has to attempt.

Aside from any other consideration, taller pool players with longer reach have innate advantages. Shorter players can overcome these advantages in some cases but all else being equal the taller player will win.

Hu
Tell that to Santos Sambajon, that guy is like 4' something or any number of other philipinos.....

ShootingArts
02-10-2006, 11:56 AM
Tell that to Santos Sambajon, that guy is like 4' something or any number of other philipinos.....

Jaden,

It still holds true that a person with more height and reach has basic advantages. Simple facts, the taller person has a better perspective for judging angles and has fewer awkward shots. Even if a person sets up their own runs perfectly they still have to respond to leaves by other people.

The best pool player I have ever seen was of average height. He overcame that disadvantage. That doesn't change the fact that it is a disadvantage to have less height and reach.

Hu

Andrew Manning
02-10-2006, 12:04 PM
I think it all has to do with who your competition is. My uncle plays pool all day sometimes. In rural central Virginia. Against rural people who only ever play when they come over to his house. And who couldn't run four stop shots to save their lives. And who literally don't know that hitting the cueball in different places makes it do different things. He always wins. He never gets any better.

How high a level you can compete at has everything to do with who you have spent your time competing against. At the top pro level, who wins has little to do with talent, or skill, or knowlegde. It has everything to do with having learned how to win; having competitive instinct and competitive edge. You can take almost any shot out of a pro 9-ball match and line up 20 pros, and they CAN ALL make the shot. They all have the ability. It's just a question of when it's really on the line, which of them WILL make the shot.

I think if you did away with the women's tour and put all those women on the men's tour, their level of play would skyrocket from where it is right now. They play as well as the other women on tour play, for the most part. They want to be better than the other women, but you don't get better without playing better players. If I spent all my time playing threes in my APA league, I'd still be a three. I try to play 6's and 7's whenever there's one available to shoot with me, and I've improved way faster than anyone who joined the league around the time I did.

I think the physiological differences, although there are obviously differences, are not necessarily relevant to the game of pool. People talk about "power", but in pool that doesn't mean strength. It means technique, having smooth acceleration through contact, keeping loose, fluid muscles through the stroke. It's not about physiology.

-Andrew

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 12:11 PM
Jaden,

It still holds true that a person with more height and reach has basic advantages. Simple facts, the taller person has a better perspective for judging angles and has fewer awkward shots. Even if a person sets up their own runs perfectly they still have to respond to leaves by other people.

The best pool player I have ever seen was of average height. He overcame that disadvantage. That doesn't change the fact that it is a disadvantage to have less height and reach.

HuBy the same token, one could easily say that a tall person would be at a disadvantage because the bending stance is more strenuous. I know when I'm on a table that's slightly low (either at or slightly below the low spec.), by back can't handle it for too long.

I think your example of the best person you've ever seen is a good example as well. How you consider it "overcoming a disadvantage" is an odd viewpoint, in my book. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of us can say that the best player they ever saw was relatively not tall.

The best player to ever come out of my area is shorter than I am. And I'm short. The best player on the planet currently is Efren Reyes. Not tall. Best player ever? Mosconi? Short.

Dave Bollman was probably the best tall player. I think he's the anomaly, not the norm.

Fred

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 12:18 PM
I think it all has to do with who your competition is. This is false. That is, it is a good reason, but it isn't "all" the reason. As I said previously, there are many reasons, all combined .

I think the physiological differences, although there are obviously differences, are not necessarily relevant to the game of pool. People talk about "power", but in pool that doesn't mean strength. It means technique, having smooth acceleration through contact, keeping loose, fluid muscles through the stroke. It's not about physiology.

-AndrewHow can you put the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool and then say it's not about physiology? Of course physiology comes into play. It's a physical game. It's physical coordination of energy transfer.

Again, as I said previously, the absolute worst thing we can do is to simply dismiss any of the legitimate reasons. Once anyone dismisses a leigitimate reason, then arguments take place. And it's needless. All the reasons are valid. Not one is invalid, and not one is the "only reason." To think otherwise is gravely short-sighted.


Fred <~~~ And smooth acceleration through contact is an impossibility.

Jimmy M.
02-10-2006, 12:27 PM
The paper today says that Deb Remmerde of Northwestern College just broke the consecutive free throw record for all organized basketball with 133 in a row. The previous record was 126.

Now stick her up in a one-on-one against any male college starter. Not to discredit her achievement, but the fact that she broke the consecutive free throw record doesn't mean that she plays basketball at the same level that the men do.

I don't know much on this topic, but I have heard that women are generally better marksmen (markswomen?) than men. Perhaps whatever aptitude they have that allows them to be better marksmen comes into play with something like free throws as well. Just out of curiousity, since I really don't follow the LPGA, how do the women compare to the men in putting? I ask because I think it would take a similar skill.

Andrew Manning
02-10-2006, 12:50 PM
This is false. That is, it is a good reason, but it isn't "all" the reason. As I said previously, there are many reasons, all combined .

How can you put the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool and then say it's not about physiology? Of course physiology comes into play. It's a physical game. It's physical coordination of energy transfer.

Again, as I said previously, the absolute worst thing we can do is to simply dismiss any of the legitimate reasons. Once anyone dismisses a leigitimate reason, then arguments take place. And it's needless. All the reasons are valid. Not one is invalid, and not one is the "only reason." To think otherwise is gravely short-sighted.


Fred <~~~ And smooth acceleration through contact is an impossibility.


To address your points:

I didn't mean it was the only reason, I meant I think it's the most important reason.

By describing what I consider the definition of "power" pool, what I meant to communicate is that physical strength, size, and speed (which I consider to be physiological differences between men and women) do not factor heavily into pool "power", and thus I don't think there's an inherent reason why women couldn't have as much power as men. What you just called "the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool" isn't physiology at all, is the point I was trying to make.

-Andrew
And by "smooth acceleration through contact" I meant "smooth acceleration up to the point of contact, including an even application of force during contact". But that's 16 words of description, and "through contact" is an easy way to simplify that concept, and thinking about accelerating "through contact" is the easiest way to achieve it.

ShootingArts
02-10-2006, 01:16 PM
Fred,

The comparison is simple. Tall people can bend lower. Short people can't stretch to achieve that extra reach and are unlikely to tote a foot stool with them to gain the better viewing angle on every shot which involves some difficulty. Height and reach are real advantages.

As I said in an earlier post, all else being equal a taller player has an advantage due to greater reach. The wider shoulders that men typically have are an advantage also as they add to reach. Greater reach means fewer shots that are awkward to shoot.

Not too surprising that some short and medium height people excel on a pool table. There are many activities where the size disadvantage is much more difficult or impossible to overcome so those desiring to compete find an arena that they can be competitive in.

Hu


By the same token, one could easily say that a tall person would be at a disadvantage because the bending stance is more strenuous. I know when I'm on a table that's slightly low (either at or slightly below the low spec.), by back can't handle it for too long.

I think your example of the best person you've ever seen is a good example as well. How you consider it "overcoming a disadvantage" is an odd viewpoint, in my book. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of us can say that the best player they ever saw was relatively not tall.

The best player to ever come out of my area is shorter than I am. And I'm short. The best player on the planet currently is Efren Reyes. Not tall. Best player ever? Mosconi? Short.

Dave Bollman was probably the best tall player. I think he's the anomaly, not the norm.

Fred

jsp
02-10-2006, 01:44 PM
As I said in an earlier post, all else being equal a taller player has an advantage due to greater reach. The wider shoulders that men typically have are an advantage also as they add to reach. Greater reach means fewer shots that are awkward to shoot.
Hmm...I don't think this argument holds water. With your logic, you can argue that the best pool players in the world (just think of the men) would be taller than average, since they would have the advantage. However, look at the players that are dominating the pool world today. They are all on the short side. Almost all of the Filipino and Taiwanese players are shorter than your average American male. The only pool superstar that is above average height that I can think of is Archer (Owen is tall, but I wouldn't label him a superstar yet). The data doesn't support your claims.

pokerhammer
02-10-2006, 01:48 PM
Annika only made one attempt to play on the PGA tour. One sample is not enough to make an accurate judgement as to what she can or can not do. Michelle Wie, has not played with the men very often but she did very well in the mens us amatures, she will win it one day. But for god sakes shes only 17 giver her a break.

Finally the LPGA is gender specific, the PGA is not. some of the mens major events (the Masters) specifiy no women, but for the most part the PGA tour is not a gender specific tour. Even so do you want to play on the Ladies tour.

I would compete very favorably on the LPGA. I use to play pro golf on some of the mini tours before I started playing cards. I just think its bullshit that Wie, and she has played in about 5-6 mens events now and failed to make a cut, continues to get sponsors exemptions to play in MENS events. Hell, she hasn't even won an LPGA event yet! Stay with your gender.

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 01:56 PM
The only pool superstar that is above average height that I can think of is Archer (.

And Archer isn't as tall as he might look on TV.

Fred

jay helfert
02-10-2006, 02:05 PM
OK, Jay, I concede your points. I will still maintain there are some sports that they can't physically catch up. They have shown that women are incapable of developing equal upper body strength to men and that would make a difference in many sports. My very first post in this thread, states that I believe the discrepancy in pool to be mostly a social issue. And I have been paying attention a little, dad.:)

I like you, you're officially adopted. And I agree about social issues affecting woman players for years, with a few exceptions.
I have heard all the arguments before about strength, mental make up, physical and physiological differences etc. I just don't totally buy into it.
I would ask why is it that some guys who are gifted physically (bigger, stronger) fall by the wayside and lesser athletes (smaller and not as strong) make it to the top in pro sports? I'm sure one can say it is about determination and drive. Not taking into account career ending injuries. What I am saying that the lack of upper body strength does not necessarily prohibit a women from participating in major sports if she has the drive and determiniation to make it.
What I personally believe is that certain women do have all the physical and mental abilities to excell at sports, and in particular Pool, which doesn't take nearly as much strength or speed to play well. I would not be surprised to see a woman World Champion some day and perhaps sooner than we think. Whoever thought a 16 year old kid would beat all the great players and win last year? Not me, that's for sure.

jay helfert
02-10-2006, 02:10 PM
Maybe it's a male's innate confidence, the swagger, the 'cock of the walk', while we females are just 'chicken'! :p


Confidence has a lot to do with it in all sporting endeavors. But nothing instills confidence like winning. I suspect Karen Corr is not lacking in confidence when she plays a man. By now she must know she has a chance against anyone. And a good one against most.
When other women see her succeeding against the guys, that may cause them to have a little more confidence as well.

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 02:17 PM
To address your points:

I didn't mean it was the only reason, I meant I think it's the most important reason. Okay. I disagree. To think any single reason is the most important, IMO, is short-sighted. You've read the other reasons. Why would any one reason be more important than the others?

By describing what I consider the definition of "power" pool, what I meant to communicate is that physical strength, size, and speed (which I consider to be physiological differences between men and women) do not factor heavily into pool "power", and thus I don't think there's an inherent reason why women couldn't have as much power as men. What you just called "the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool" isn't physiology at all, is the point I was trying to make. It's not whether they can handle of those shots that are in question, but with what degree of acuracy and effort. I think it's safe to say that the average man can handle the higher power shots more readily. If a shot requires power, and a man inherently has more power, then by reason of effort/results ratio, a man would have an inherent advantage on those shots .It is a physical difference. Subtle, yes, but still a difference that, IMO, a man has an advantage.

This is where I have to put that seemingly haughty note that says that I don't think you've given the physical aspect enough thought, and that responding now shouldn't be a priority. Your responses revolve around the same slippery slope of others who quickly dismissed the physical differences. I apologize since it will read condescendingly, but I don't know any other way to say it. This question that comes up way too often. And I think your reasoning is wrong. If we concede that the game has physical aspect, then one of the genders must have an inherent physical advantage. Balance, upper body strength, lower body strength, back muscles, no breasts, the list of differences that have a direct affect on playing pool is too long.


And by "smooth acceleration through contact" I meant "smooth acceleration up to the point of contact, including an even application of force during contact". But that's 16 words of description, and "through contact" is an easy way to simplify that concept, and thinking about accelerating "through contact" is the easiest way to achieve it. This is a completely different discussion, but the cue is actually decelerating to the point of constant velocity when it contacts the cueball. Nevertheless, it's the coordination of that motion that makes this game a "physical game." And the power strokes in combination with the coordination of the body parts to stroke in line, the average man has shown superiority.

And again, the physiological difference is just one of several reasons which should include socio-cultural, participatory numbers, and competition. You cannot discount the physical differences. The effort should be to define "power" as it applies to pool, not how it doesn't apply to pool.

Fred

Cornerman
02-10-2006, 02:30 PM
I
I would ask why is it that some guys who are gifted physically (bigger, stronger) fall by the wayside and lesser athletes (smaller and not as strong) make it to the top in pro sports? .

I can't say it enough. There isn't just one reason why a person excels or fails, but a combination of many factors.

For any physical endeavor, a person if s/he is going to excel must have:

-innate physical ability
-uncanny capacity to learn
-willingness to improve
-the means to improve
-time
-energy
-over-the-top drive and determination
-an arena to challenge the skills


She or he doesn't have to be/have the best at all or any of these, but she or he must have a good amount at all of them. Larry Bird is the prime example. A gifted athlete, but nowhere near as natural as, say, Dominique Wilkins. But Larry's drive is unmatched. And his willingness to improve is legendary. So, Larry gets a nod above Dominique.

If there are things that deter any of these, then excellence will be limited. Such is the case of socio-cultural effects on women in pool/billiards. Socio-cultural history has detered at least two or three of the above. But, again, those are just two or three pieces of the entire puzzle.

So, of course one physically gifted person may not excel like a lesser counterpart. Physicality is just one piece of the puzzle. And if the more gifted athlete is lacking in drive, or the means to improve, then he'll not excel as far as the lesser athlete that had everything else.

The worst NBA player is still the best natural athlete his local county has ever seen. If all else were equal, than physical ability will be left standing as the major piece of the puzzle (like the bench sitter in the NBA).

Fred

jay helfert
02-10-2006, 02:35 PM
A lot of things have been discussed but a simple mechanical factor hasn't unless I overlooked it in my quick scan of the posts. Simply put, the average woman is smaller than the average man. Obviously, they play on the same size and height tables when competing together.

When standing the average man has a better overhead perspective of the table. He also has a reach advantage which means that in the course of a match there are fewer awkward shots that he has to attempt.

Aside from any other consideration, taller pool players with longer reach have innate advantages. Shorter players can overcome these advantages in some cases but all else being equal the taller player will win.

Hu

I totally disagree with you here. Yes, there are advantages when it comes to reach, but there are other advantages a short player has. Much easier to get down on the balls and get in a good solid stance. And short players usually are able to stand for long periods of time. Actually the height of the table (around 30") lends itself to play by shorter individuals.
Examples that come to mind include Alex P., Jose P., Marcus C., Santos S., Rafael M., Tommy Kennedy and Boston Shorty. All 5'4" or less in height.
Many other great players, including Mosconi were in the 5'6" to 5'8" range.
Most of the above learned early on to play with either hand, thus negating the problem of reach. And they also excell when using the bridge.
If you argument against women players has to do with height, I don't agree.

ShootingArts
02-10-2006, 02:40 PM
Other things than height are factors and as I mentioned the lack of size and strength can lead people into sports such as pool where these factors are less important than in other sports. Comparatively more smaller players playing the game while larger more athletic people are focused on other activities could explain the number of smaller players that are successful in pool.

Few Americans decide early in life that they want to become pool players and focus almost entirely on that. Much easier to focus on pool when it seems like the way to a better life as the Filipinos see it. Nor do we have national development programs like some of the Asian countries use.

Assuming two equal players, the player with fewer shots that are awkward to shoot will win over time. This favors the player with greater reach. The larger the table the more advantage the person with more reach has too.

Hu


Hmm...I don't think this argument holds water. With your logic, you can argue that the best pool players in the world (just think of the men) would be taller than average, since they would have the advantage. However, look at the players that are dominating the pool world today. They are all on the short side. Almost all of the Filipino and Taiwanese players are shorter than your average American male. The only pool superstar that is above average height that I can think of is Archer (Owen is tall, but I wouldn't label him a superstar yet). The data doesn't support your claims.

jay helfert
02-10-2006, 02:40 PM
I think it all has to do with who your competition is. My uncle plays pool all day sometimes. In rural central Virginia. Against rural people who only ever play when they come over to his house. And who couldn't run four stop shots to save their lives. And who literally don't know that hitting the cueball in different places makes it do different things. He always wins. He never gets any better.

How high a level you can compete at has everything to do with who you have spent your time competing against. At the top pro level, who wins has little to do with talent, or skill, or knowlegde. It has everything to do with having learned how to win; having competitive instinct and competitive edge. You can take almost any shot out of a pro 9-ball match and line up 20 pros, and they CAN ALL make the shot. They all have the ability. It's just a question of when it's really on the line, which of them WILL make the shot.

I think if you did away with the women's tour and put all those women on the men's tour, their level of play would skyrocket from where it is right now. They play as well as the other women on tour play, for the most part. They want to be better than the other women, but you don't get better without playing better players. If I spent all my time playing threes in my APA league, I'd still be a three. I try to play 6's and 7's whenever there's one available to shoot with me, and I've improved way faster than anyone who joined the league around the time I did.

I think the physiological differences, although there are obviously differences, are not necessarily relevant to the game of pool. People talk about "power", but in pool that doesn't mean strength. It means technique, having smooth acceleration through contact, keeping loose, fluid muscles through the stroke. It's not about physiology.

-Andrew


Thank you Andrew, point well taken.

jay helfert
02-10-2006, 02:42 PM
Now stick her up in a one-on-one against any male college starter. Not to discredit her achievement, but the fact that she broke the consecutive free throw record doesn't mean that she plays basketball at the same level that the men do.

I don't know much on this topic, but I have heard that women are generally better marksmen (markswomen?) than men. Perhaps whatever aptitude they have that allows them to be better marksmen comes into play with something like free throws as well. Just out of curiousity, since I really don't follow the LPGA, how do the women compare to the men in putting? I ask because I think it would take a similar skill.


I've watched the LPGA tourneys for years. Many women have awesome short games. Put all the pros on a Par 3 course and you might be surprised at the results.

jay helfert
02-10-2006, 02:49 PM
I can't say it enough. There isn't just one reason why a person excels or fails, but a combination of many factors.

For any physical endeavor, a person if s/he is going to excel must have:

-innate physical ability
-uncanny capacity to learn
-willingness to improve
-the means to improve
-time
-energy
-over-the-top drive and determination
-an arena to challenge the skills


She or he doesn't have to be/have the best at all or any of these, but she or he must have a good amount at all of them. Larry Bird is the prime example. A gifted athlete, but nowhere near as natural as, say, Dominique Wilkins. But Larry's drive is unmatched. And his willingness to improve is legendary. So, Larry gets a nod above Dominique.

If there are things that deter any of these, then excellence will be limited. Such is the case of socio-cultural effects on women in pool/billiards. Socio-cultural history has detered at least two or three of the above. But, again, those are just two or three pieces of the entire puzzle.

So, of course one physically gifted person may not excel like a lesser counterpart. Physicality is just one piece of the puzzle. And if the more gifted athlete is lacking in drive, or the means to improve, then he'll not excel as far as the lesser athlete that had everything else.

The worst NBA player is still the best natural athlete his local county has ever seen. If all else were equal, than physical ability will be left standing as the major piece of the puzzle (like the bench sitter in the NBA).

Fred


Well said Fred,
You have captured the essence of what it takes to excell at any sport, and I see nothing there that precludes a woman from being the best or at least one of the best at Pool.

bruin70
02-10-2006, 03:04 PM
I ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,these, but she or he must have a good amount at all of them. Larry Bird is the prime example. A gifted athlete, but nowhere near as natural as, say, Dominique Wilkins. But Larry's drive is unmatched. And his willingness to improve is legendary. So, Larry gets a nod above Dominique.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So, of course one physically gifted person may not excel like a lesser counterpart. Physicality is just one piece of the puzzle. And if the more gifted athlete is lacking in drive, or the means to improve, then he'll not excel as far as the lesser athlete that had everything else.

The worst NBA player is still the best natural athlete his local county has ever seen. If all else were equal, than physical ability will be left standing as the major piece of the puzzle (like the bench sitter in the NBA).

Fred

i hate to get off topic with this, but.......i understand your meaning, but just for the f*ck of it,,

the definition of "natural athlete" is a strained one. i feel bird was just as natural an athlete,,well, let's say natural bb player, as wilkins. i don't consider that because wilkins was a human hilite film, that he was a better athlete. it takes more than jumping through the ceiling to be considered a natural bb player. it is a heady game, but ultimately bird was a great shooter...that makes him a better naturall bb player than dw ever was. maybe dw could high jump better, but so what. and you can't assume dw slouched on practicing. there is a misconception that the slower guys work harder. maybe yes, maybe no.

on very rare occasions will you find a totally dense, pure athlete and a totally brilliant stumble-bum. they're all somewhere in the middle.. in pool, the distinctions are more blurred, because if there's ONE THING they all do well, it's pocketing. so at the top level, it's not simply pocketing that seperates them, never was.

i hate distinctions about natural gifted. every pro was naturally gifted. you need the talent before you can hone it.

Snapshot9
02-10-2006, 03:14 PM
If you view yourself as having a handicap because of being shorter, you classify it into the 'problem' category for which you must find a solution to, therefore you work harder at overcoming the problem areas because of your height. This goes back to your determination and how to solve Pool problems, and sometimes, it fans the flames.

Not to dispute you Jay, but I thought Rafael was about 5'5" (at least it looked like it to me when I shot him ... I am 5'7", and I was studying him particularly when he shot jump shots), and Mosconi looked to
be 5'9" to me when I shot him in an exhibition match in late 60's. Shorter people are much more cognizant about height than the average person, but
your points were well made and received.

bruin70
02-10-2006, 03:17 PM
I totally disagree with you here. Yes, there are advantages when it comes to reach, but there are other advantages a short player has. Much easier to get down on the balls and get in a good solid stance. And short players usually are able to stand for long periods of time. Actually the height of the table (around 30") lends itself to play by shorter individuals.
Examples that come to mind include Alex P., Jose P., Marcus C., Santos S., Rafael M., Tommy Kennedy and Boston Shorty. All 5'4" or less in height.
Many other great players, including Mosconi were in the 5'6" to 5'8" range.
Most of the above learned early on to play with either hand, thus negating the problem of reach. And they also excell when using the bridge.
If you argument against women players has to do with height, I don't agree.

it's not fair to cite these extraordinary shorter players. they are great IN SPITE of their size. great is great.

as a short player, i feel there are very important advantages that tall players have. one is perception:the table simply looks smaller to a taller player. it is that same perception that make a 7 foot table easier to play on than a 9 footer.

another is their perspective of the layout. i watched a game from a stairway that gave me a chance to "look down" on the table. it struck me immediately that this perspective is something taller players enjoy, and it changes how you see angles.

djp2k6
02-10-2006, 03:38 PM
It's like no one who posted after me read my post or something. It is a simple fact that male and female brains develop differently leading to males being better at some things (visualization/conceptualization skills, math, etc) and females being better at other things (language skills, etc.). It is scientific fact. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule and with training and practice, blah, blah, blah. There is no difference in the ability to handle stress. I don't believe the strength difference is a handicap. You obviously don't need an extremely powerful break to spread and pocket balls. It is conceptualization ability and that's all it is.

rackmsuckr
02-10-2006, 03:43 PM
I totally disagree with you here. Yes, there are advantages when it comes to reach, but there are other advantages a short player has. Much easier to get down on the balls and get in a good solid stance. And short players usually are able to stand for long periods of time. Actually the height of the table (around 30") lends itself to play by shorter individuals.
Examples that come to mind include Alex P., Jose P., Marcus C., Santos S., Rafael M., Tommy Kennedy and Boston Shorty. All 5'4" or less in height.
Many other great players, including Mosconi were in the 5'6" to 5'8" range.
Most of the above learned early on to play with either hand, thus negating the problem of reach. And they also excell when using the bridge.
If you argument against women players has to do with height, I don't agree.

I think that even though these guys are short for guys, they are about average to tall (all tall to me!) for women players. If you take a 5'4" man player against the same height woman player, the woman's center of gravity is lower. I know that having more mass over the table, helps strengthen the stability of one's stance.

Jaden
02-10-2006, 03:44 PM
It's like no one who posted after me read my post or something. It is a simple fact that male and female brains develop differently leading to males being better at some things (visualization/conceptualization skills, math, etc) and females being better at other things (language skills, etc.). It is scientific fact. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule and with training and practice, blah, blah, blah. There is no difference in the ability to handle stress. I don't believe the strength difference is a handicap. You obviously don't need an extremely powerful break to spread and pocket balls. It is conceptualization ability and that's all it is.


I understand you. I've brought this up before in similar previous posts, and I cited psychological studies as references. People tend to just look past it..

I don't know if I'd agree that that's ALL there is to it, but it is a big part. Because what is pool other than the spatial/visualization of where the balls are going to go?

Jimmy M.
02-10-2006, 04:43 PM
I've watched the LPGA tourneys for years. Many women have awesome short games. Put all the pros on a Par 3 course and you might be surprised at the results.

I was trying to say that I thought they may be great putters. I'm not so interested that I'm going to go to pgatour.com and start comparing stats but, being that women might possess more of whatever skill is utilized in something like marksmanship, and perhaps free throws, I would think that it may be a determining factor in putting as well. :)

Donovan
02-10-2006, 08:44 PM
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=23720

The last time this discussion came up, I did some research...here is the thread that has it.

Godfather
02-10-2006, 08:45 PM
First let me point out that the level of the pool table has not been modified, that I'm aware of, since its inception. People were shorter even a hundred years ago, so the table was designed for shorter people. That's not to say that it could have been designed poorly and taller people could not also excel.

The number of shots that are difficult to reach are fairly minimal and there are ways around it. Opposite hand, behind the back, and if course the bridge. The Fillipinos very rarely have to use the bridge, and even if a person has to get it out every now and again, it's not the most difficult thing in the world to use. If a person is shorter, and knows they will encounter these shots more often, they would spend the time to master at least one of these skills. The short people who are good at pool have not overcome a brutal disadvantage. And you don't get some incredible read on the table from having your eyes a couple inches higher. I know guys with bad vision that shoot great. They just know what the shots look like to them. And the arguments about a more stable bridge or something, seem odd to me as well. I've played on higher equipment and haven't had any trouble in that area.

The post about conceptualization differences was good. I don't think it's enough of a disadvantage for women, that they couldn't find a way to overcome. We're not talking about higher level math here, and all the good women players I know, have a good understanding of the basic nine-ball patterns. One rail, two rail shape. There may be a super-imaginative shot that comes up every couple thousand shots that they're not capable of seeing or something, but they're more than able to visualize the things necessary to play run-out pool.

Cameron Smith
02-10-2006, 10:04 PM
I would compete very favorably on the LPGA. I use to play pro golf on some of the mini tours before I started playing cards. I just think its bullshit that Wie, and she has played in about 5-6 mens events now and failed to make a cut, continues to get sponsors exemptions to play in MENS events. Hell, she hasn't even won an LPGA event yet! Stay with your gender.

Again give her a break shes still quite young and she is becoming a great player, one who will eventually bridge the gender gap.

Who are you? I don't want to sound disrespectul but you have claimed to be a top golfer and a top poker player. Im almost afraid to mention another sport :D.

jay helfert
02-10-2006, 11:07 PM
First let me point out that the level of the pool table has not been modified, that I'm aware of, since its inception. People were shorter even a hundred years ago, so the table was designed for shorter people. That's not to say that it could have been designed poorly and taller people could not also excel.

The number of shots that are difficult to reach are fairly minimal and there are ways around it. Opposite hand, behind the back, and if course the bridge. The Fillipinos very rarely have to use the bridge, and even if a person has to get it out every now and again, it's not the most difficult thing in the world to use. If a person is shorter, and knows they will encounter these shots more often, they would spend the time to master at least one of these skills. The short people who are good at pool have not overcome a brutal disadvantage. And you don't get some incredible read on the table from having your eyes a couple inches higher. I know guys with bad vision that shoot great. They just know what the shots look like to them. And the arguments about a more stable bridge or something, seem odd to me as well. I've played on higher equipment and haven't had any trouble in that area.

The post about conceptualization differences was good. I don't think it's enough of a disadvantage for women, that they couldn't find a way to overcome. We're not talking about higher level math here, and all the good women players I know, have a good understanding of the basic nine-ball patterns. One rail, two rail shape. There may be a super-imaginative shot that comes up every couple thousand shots that they're not capable of seeing or something, but they're more than able to visualize the things necessary to play run-out pool.


Thank you son. lol
Ultimately in pool it comes down to who controls the cue ball best (i.e. Efren) and who misses the least (i.e. Sigel in his prime). Knowledge and recognition of patterns may be the next most important. Funny thing about pool that I've witnessed for many years, is it really doesn't matter (as much as people think) what the rules are and how long the races are. The better players somehow manage to come up with the big shots under pressure. And the weaker players wilt (and miss under pressure).
The universal term to express this is "HEART". The champions have a lot of it, and lesser players (like me) have a little more 'dog' in them. How do you define and analyze Heart? I don't know, but it certainly plays a part in separating the men/women from the boys.
And then there's Earl, the greatest tournament 9-Ball player of all time. When he was in gear it looked like he was practicing on a bar table. That's how easy he made 9-Ball look. He simply had a higher gear than anyone else. Earl stringing racks was 9-Ball at its best. IMHO

Cornerman
02-11-2006, 07:27 AM
the definition of "natural athlete" is a strained one. i feel bird was just as natural an athlete,,well, let's say natural bb player, as wilkins. i don't consider that because wilkins was a human hilite film, that he was a better athlete. it takes more than jumping through the ceiling to be considered a natural bb player. it is a heady game, but ultimately bird was a great shooter...that makes him a better naturall bb player than dw ever was. maybe dw could high jump better, but so what. and you can't assume dw slouched on practicing. there is a misconception that the slower guys work harder. maybe yes, maybe no.
.I think you slightly missed my point. Both were obviously exceptional athletes. But one was clearly a better athlete by birth. I chose Dominique for no particular reason other than it is obvious to most that he is faster, can jump higher with more easy, shows more flexibility, etc. than Bird. It is impossible to say whether Bird was more naturally gifted than Wilkins in shooting. But, what is easy to say is that Bird worked harder than Wilkins. Please don't say that I said Dominique was a slouch at practicing. Of course he wasn't. But Larry's work mentality is legendary to the point of OCD (I do live in Celtic Nation). There was physical advantage to Wilkins, just by birth. But, as I said, it's the combination of physical innate ability with a whole bunch of other things that makes excellence. That was the point.

Nothing I said implies in any way shape or form that Bird wasn't a natural athlete or Wilkins was a slouch in practice. I don't mind the debate, but debating against something I didn't say or completely out of context is really unfair and forces me to respond.

Fred

Cornerman
02-11-2006, 07:32 AM
I know that having more mass over the table, helps strengthen the stability of one's stance.
Thank you Linda. This again is one of those physiology ideas, a very simple and obvious one that gets brushed aside. It's not brute strength people. But it is physiology and strength in general.

A short study on center of gravity really should be done before anyone dismisses the physical reasons. It also answers why too tall is a disadvantage.

Fred

iacas
02-11-2006, 07:53 AM
Annika Sorennstein (sp?) was the first woman to average a 67 in golf, now its common. She still dominates but her competition is getting better. Tiger Woods was untouchable when he burst onto the scene, it caused players to practice and get better. As a result of these two, the standard of golf is better than it ever has been. As a result of the top women players in pool, the standard is getting better and better.

Appropriate timing here for me to link to this (http://thesandtrap.com/archives/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_annika.php), I guess.

I never got into this thread and just now started reading on the first page, but has anyone yet mentioned the fact that men are generally better at things like geometry, 2D/3D "shape," and so forth?

Pool is more unlike golf (in regards to the men/women divide) than it is like golf. Whereas power is a big part of golf (when played from the same tees in particular), I don't see power as being anywhere near as much of a requirement in pool. 95% of the shots you hit in pool are between a 1 and a 7 on a 1-10 power scale. I think most women can hit "7s" pretty comfortably.

I think there are a few factors that contribute to women not being as "good" as men. They're general factors and there are exceptions, of course, but I don't want to add "in general" to every point below. They are, IMHO:

Competitiveness. Boys are taught to compete at younger age than women, so they have that "killer" instinct. Go look at a typical pool room. Go to a bar and find four people on a double date - the men will be trying to win and the women will be trying to socialize.
Geometry. Men are typically better at understanding things "in space" than women. Women have skills in other areas (language, arts, etc.) more so than men.
Society. It's kept a lot of women out of pool halls. They're smoky, men swear and drink, and they're still regarded as bachelor havens. I'm guessing that even most of the top women these days learned in private halls or on tables in their homes as kids, or they had a nice hall that didn't fit the stereotypical "pool hall." Pool, too, is a gambling sport... and gambling (until recently with poker) hasn't been as attractive to women as it is to men. How many women do you see betting on horses at the track? This one is a bit weird, too, since 70% of lottery ticket buyers are women (and the lottery is a form of gambling).
Nails. I've known women that won't play pool because they don't want to mess up their nails. I'm not specifically saying "nails" keep women out of pool, but things like nails might. Women seem to have more reasons to not play than men do, whether it's "if I bend over, someone will see my panty line" (I've heard this one also), etc. I could call this one "vanity" perhaps. If a person never starts to play, they never get "hooked".

I may think of others later, and again I stress that they're my opinion and that there are alot of exceptions to each of the above, but in general, they seem to contribute.

Godfather
02-11-2006, 09:22 AM
Thank you Linda. This again is one of those physiology ideas, a very simple and obvious one that gets brushed aside. It's not brute strength people. But it is physiology and strength in general.

A short study on center of gravity really should be done before anyone dismisses the physical reasons. It also answers why too tall is a disadvantage.

Fred

Do you people really believe this? I've seen very short people play pool and they're not wobbling all over the place because they're stance isn't stable. Short people are just as able to form solid body positions. What exactly are you saying? That these people lose their balance in the middle of shots and that causes their misses? Shorties are more than capable of putting their two feet a little bit apart and leaning over in a stable manner. I'm confused here. It's not as if you have to withstand some force that is knocking you over and if it were, short people would be more stable. I'm going to keep my eye out, next time I'm in a pool room, for all the wobbly midgets.

erikido
02-12-2006, 02:25 PM
I have the end all answer to this thread. Guys are working on their strokes from the moment they hit puberty. Work that wrist action.