Female players
- Thread starter Kim Bye
- Start date
You beat me to the post.
We were on the road at a Joss Tour tournement at Snooker's in Providence, RI. The whole Northeast "regulars" were present. Karen Corr always played on the Joss Tour.
I was sitting at the bar in Snooker's, and Frankie Hernandez walks up to Karen Corr and asked her point blank, "Why do you play on the Joss Tour against the men?" and she replied without hesitation, "I like to play on the Joss Tour against the men because it keeps my game sharp." I can't tell you how many Joss tournaments Karen has won, but I'd say quite a few when she was living in PA.
And I might add, none of the men like to go up against Karen Corr. They can't fade getting beat by "the girl." :thumbup:
Attachments
I have seen a few and played in one, but not when Karen was there. But as an * to that, she is one of the top 2-3 women that play in the US out there, her and Alison were basically finishing 1 and 2 in every women's tour event.
I'm in the same boat as the rest, I don't see any reason as to why the top 50 women can't compete with the top 50 men, given equal practice and instruction. Maybe that's the key, most women just don't care if they don't run 3-4-5 racks every time, nor do they need to to be doing well in the women's only tournaments. I'm sure that will change if the asian women play more and more in the US, the US women will have to be better or just quit playing in major events.
Are there actually 50 professional female players in America?
Here's the way I look at this: Can a woman beat a man? Yes, as far as I'm concerned. Can the "top" woman beat Shane? Probably not in a long race. But then again, the other top MEN can't beat him either.
There aren't enough women out there period to make any kind of fair comparison. So the more important question would be, why aren't there more women out there? Fran, so far, is the only poster who's made any real inroads on that and it's worth listening to.
If 6 women get together at the basement world championships you will have a winner. A winner that can't compete against the men. If 600 women compete, that winner is going to have to be a much stronger player and would more than likely be a challenger regardless of gender.
Here's the way I look at this: Can a woman beat a man? Yes, as far as I'm concerned. Can the "top" woman beat Shane? Probably not in a long race. But then again, the other top MEN can't beat him either.
There aren't enough women out there period to make any kind of fair comparison. So the more important question would be, why aren't there more women out there? Fran, so far, is the only poster who's made any real inroads on that and it's worth listening to.
If 6 women get together at the basement world championships you will have a winner. A winner that can't compete against the men. If 600 women compete, that winner is going to have to be a much stronger player and would more than likely be a challenger regardless of gender.
Not long. The players CAPABLE of winning the event would be the top 32 men and the top 4 women. The top 16 women however are all capable of winning any given set against the lower 16 men and the top 8 women are all capable of winning any given set against the top 16 men.
In a 64 person event the winner will need to win 6-7 matches win the event. So depending on how the draw works out it won't be long before women are reaching the top four.
Then comes the experience that they would gain resulting in them getting stronger and stronger. Another way to look at it is that by the time a man has reached the top 32 he is not likely to be getting much stronger as a player but a woman who has reached the top 32 in the women's ranking can still improve by a lot if compared to the men. So playing against the men would give them a lot of experience against better players which they would soak up.
I have often said I would love to take Kelly Fisher on the road and have her gamble against all the gamblers in the USA with one condition. Everyone Kelly plays once has to agree to play Kelly the same way on the return trip. I firmly believe that Kelly would gain so much knowledge that she would jump up several balls and on the return trip would absolutely dominate SOME of the players she gambled with on the first trip.
I have never shown Kelly a shot that she could not master in minutes and that's not an exaggeration. No matter what the shot Kelly Fisher can execute it properly and consistently in minutes once she is shown what to do. So as a human what is it that she lacks that Johnny Archer has? I think it's battle experience and knowledge.
Those little nuances where Johnny knows certain shots that go with certain situations, where he knows several moves for every situation, things he has learned going up against other men who have also had to learn all this are things that Kelly hasn't had to learn, hasn't had the opportunity to learn. (well to honest, any woman has the opportunity to run around and gamble if they want to but they don't have the opportunity to play tournaments against men.)
So I think it wouldn't be long before a woman won one of your events, and not much longer after that before they were winning more of them.
Are you kidding me? I couldn't handle the old business world. The business world is not for me. I'm sure the modern one is even more competitive. I don't like competition. I think there should be a separate division in the business world for B players. Wait, there already is, it's called the service industry. I know something about that world. I am sure the women are every bit as competent as men in the business world. Why wouldn't they be? Who said otherwise? In fact, they might even dominate, being as aggressive as they need to be to stay in the game, and using their feminine charms to put them over the top and out of reach. Yes, they are superior. There, I said it.
TJ - PS.......even the less attractive or even ugly ones can get away with it, as incredibly, no matter how ugly they might be, there is always some guy willing to pay.
First of all, the right to vote means nothing - not in the end - and in my opinion people who vote are fools of the highest order. I am well aware of your argument about women being subservient throughout history - but you just don't seem to understand that I'm saying the roles played by both men and women throughout history have their perils. Men did not force the arrangement. Nature did. Now of course over time things change, constantly, I'm aware of that, and women want to go out and make their own money. But there was a time they could not. And there was a time they did not want to do so. No matter how many women want to get out there and compete, the reality is that as long as men continue to fight over women (not going away anytime soon, and I don't mean just physically fighting over them, I mean competing over them) - as long as that continues, men will always have a competitive edge that women are not ready for. If women are where they are at today because men put them there, then it is also true that men are where they are at because of women. I sometimes think that men who defend women at every turn really don't think as highly of women as they pretend.
Know what I mean?
TJ
Yeah, but you don't understand, Pathetic Shark, the women were not as creative because the men wouldn't let them. We held them back. Men are egotistical pigs. Look at our skyscrapers for instance. Some of them look like big penises - manifestation of the male ego. If women had not been hounded out of the architect field, who knows, instead of big tall buildings, we'd all be living and working in dark smelly caves. And just think, if that had been the case, the WTC towers going down could have been averted.
One more thing about women not related to pool, the recent clamoring on their behalf to get into military combat. I'm all for it, always have been. In fact, if the draft ever comes back, I want women as well as men to be taken off to fight. How do you think the equality-seeking women of today's modern world would like that?
TJ
In order to respond with any degree of honesty to your latest post regarding boorish poolroom behavior I would need to know the names and locations of the poolrooms you've been frequenting. Are you saying you've been in all poolrooms and they're all the same? Hell, I haven't played in 20 years, and I've been in my share of dumps, but I've also been in many rooms where the problems you talk about didn't exist. Of course maybe I'm just an insensitive slob who isn't able to see it. Or maybe you need to find a better place to play. If you are treated less equally because you're a female, try to remember that there is a flip side to that coin, the male side, that includes things such as getting punched in the face for saying things other guys don't want to hear. Try to think about that while you're boning up for your role as Joan of Arc.
TJ
I really need to jump in here because this thread has turned in a way that I believe allows me to get back to the point I was trying to make in the first place. I don't care if a woman wins the very first week. Winning a tournament doesn't make a person rich for life. The men on the PGA tour play every week. The men on the lesser tours are excellent players but not quite as good, so they make less. My point - not that it's a special point, just that it's mine - is not whether women are good enough to play with the top men, but whether they're good enough to play exclusively with the top men and make a living doing it. I don't think so. Not without somehow bringing their gender into it, ala Jeannette Lee and her stupid commercial where she says you can't look good and be a good player too. My only point, or my main one, is simply that women cannot make it without their own league and they should be grateful they've got it, and I'd like to see them admit it openly, which of course will never happen.
You hit the nail on the head and I believe everyone knows it. But the reality is, there are many forms of competition in this world and women will always seek out the form best for them. You will never see as many women as men playing pool, just as you will never see as many women as men moving furniture for a living. Women have their advantages but are not quick to admit to them. They can compete equally with men in fields such as law - pounding gavels and sending men off to spend years in cages, for example - but there are certain fields of endeavor in which we will never see as many women as men - such as low paying physical labor jobs for instance, or other jobs that don't lend them some kind of advantage based on their gender. Nothing wrong with that, human nature I guess. So, women can compete with men in many fields and may even do better than the men - but it will never happen in the game of pool.
The delusions and strawman arguments continue. I don't think the main argument is that no woman can beat any man. Whomever believes that is crazy.
I find it very simple. IPT 2006.
ALL the top women where there. Corr and Fisher in their prime. The round robin format was also beneficial to the ladies. It meant they didn't get knocked out facing Efren in the first match, and allowed them to score on some of the weaker men in the tournament. Eliminates flukes, and blow outs. Provided a good measure.
How did they do? The proof is there for all to see.
Do note, this was by far...the most serious tournament I can remember. I have never before, or after seen both the men and women players more determined, more focused, and more serious about their games than during the IPT. They were playing their hearts out to try and earn their tour card. Yes, you see players highly focused and determined for the world pool championships, and the US Open. But their focus and determination is for a single tournament. The goal is the winning of the tournament. The IPT was all that, and the quest to stay on the tour. There was a lot more at stake. This was the best thing to ever happen to pool ever (at the time). Opportunity of a lifetime for these players.
I was there for the NA Open. I watched the top ladies go against the men. What did I witness? I watched them lose badly quite often. They would be a threat or even win against a few of the weaker men, the semi-pros and the "bait" that Sigel and Trudeau put out there. But not against the regular, touring pros.
Watching someone like Manalo break and run a 7 pack....while most of the time the ladies weren't even making a ball on the break. The nice thing about the IPT was they had detailed stats, like break and run percentage and all of that. Doubt it's still on the site, I'm sure someone saved it. Their B&R percentage was deplorable. They struggle in these racks to get out. Whereas the men were just gunning balls in and running out, over and over.
All that said, the experiment has been done. The proof is there. Now, does the current batch of top ladies play at a higher level? Sure. But haven't the men also moved the bar up?
I find it very simple. IPT 2006.
ALL the top women where there. Corr and Fisher in their prime. The round robin format was also beneficial to the ladies. It meant they didn't get knocked out facing Efren in the first match, and allowed them to score on some of the weaker men in the tournament. Eliminates flukes, and blow outs. Provided a good measure.
How did they do? The proof is there for all to see.
Do note, this was by far...the most serious tournament I can remember. I have never before, or after seen both the men and women players more determined, more focused, and more serious about their games than during the IPT. They were playing their hearts out to try and earn their tour card. Yes, you see players highly focused and determined for the world pool championships, and the US Open. But their focus and determination is for a single tournament. The goal is the winning of the tournament. The IPT was all that, and the quest to stay on the tour. There was a lot more at stake. This was the best thing to ever happen to pool ever (at the time). Opportunity of a lifetime for these players.
I was there for the NA Open. I watched the top ladies go against the men. What did I witness? I watched them lose badly quite often. They would be a threat or even win against a few of the weaker men, the semi-pros and the "bait" that Sigel and Trudeau put out there. But not against the regular, touring pros.
Watching someone like Manalo break and run a 7 pack....while most of the time the ladies weren't even making a ball on the break. The nice thing about the IPT was they had detailed stats, like break and run percentage and all of that. Doubt it's still on the site, I'm sure someone saved it. Their B&R percentage was deplorable. They struggle in these racks to get out. Whereas the men were just gunning balls in and running out, over and over.
All that said, the experiment has been done. The proof is there. Now, does the current batch of top ladies play at a higher level? Sure. But haven't the men also moved the bar up?
The IPT was a good example and would have provided a nice bunch of stats over time. It's still a numbers game.
There were about five women against 145 men.
That said if I remember right, Kelly Fisher lost one match against Orcullo 8:7 - Kelly dogged one shot at the end. Orcullo said to her that she can PLAY.
Loree Jon Jones who was retired put a five pack on Thorsten Hohmann in the round robin beating him 5:0.
Gerda Hofstatter, after listening to Strickand make loud and derisive comments about women players, beat him in the knockout stage.
Line Kjorsevik I think won her spot in one of the events by winning a qualifier against European pro caliber men, the $2000 entry qualifier.
Had the IPT continued then we would have seen whether the top women could have improved their games to stay in the top 100. I believe that they could have BUT that no matter what it still would be tough because the top 100 men players in the world ARE the very best that players can be. So any given person would have had issues going up against them and being part of that group.
Don't confuse the pre NA Open events made for publicity and show, with the NA and World Open matches that really counted.
There weren't any race to 5 at the NA Open, they were all race to 8.
IPT was short lived, but the tournament was a great eye opener on many levels. Not just for the women vs. men debate. Exhibitions, invitationals made for TV hype and other events where there are no consequences do not count.
At the NA where it counted, where a tour card was on the line, where money wasn't guaranteed the same was as an invitational, where there wasn't cameras in everyone's faces trying to promote the drama --- the ladies got crushed.
There weren't any race to 5 at the NA Open, they were all race to 8.
IPT was short lived, but the tournament was a great eye opener on many levels. Not just for the women vs. men debate. Exhibitions, invitationals made for TV hype and other events where there are no consequences do not count.
At the NA where it counted, where a tour card was on the line, where money wasn't guaranteed the same was as an invitational, where there wasn't cameras in everyone's faces trying to promote the drama --- the ladies got crushed.
I am talking about the actual tournaments. Lorree Jon put a five or six pack on Thorsten and beat him badly.
Kelly lost one to Orcullo 8:7
Gerda beat Strickand.
The ladies didn't get crushed. But again it was a FEW ladies against 145 men. They did ok considering what they were up against. Would any of them have retained their tour cards at the end of the first season? I don't know.
And again no one is denying that the ladies as a group are weaker than the men. Individually who knows where any particular woman ranks among all pool players? No one knows and the IPT would have answered the question if it had continued for 8 ball under the IPT conditions.
You need to read up on a little history on that subject....
I know what you mean about a few going up against many. Same thing happened to me last year when I applied for a job as a cheerleader. The women treated me very harshly. "Where can I go?", I wondered. "Why won't any of the ladies stick up for me?"
I realized I wasn't yet ready to compete for an actual job, so I decided to go to cheerleading school. But even there all the students were female and I just couldn't get anyone to help me.
I worked out at home, doing my own routines, getting better by the day until finally I became in my opinion one of the best cheerleaders who ever lived, and still the ladies discriminated against me. I know I'm as good as they are, but they won't let me prove it. It's not fair.
TJ
blah blah
Shoebat
Well, I think if you practice hard and keep trying your best, you don't have to accept any of the limits that other people try to put on you.
There's hope for you.
Can you send me some of the drugs you are on? I'd appreciate a break from reality and whatever plane you are on seems to be working for you.
If you did work your butt off to become a cheerleader and the women said no, you have the wrong equipment and therefore you are not allowed to compete in ALL the competitions just in a few select ones then you would never know how you really stacked up because you wouldn't have the chance to get tournament experience. You would have to be REALLY exceptional to be able to do better than all the seasoned pros and if you were then it would clear to everyone that they would have to deal with you.
But the ODDS would be much more that you, the tiny minority who did NOT have the same level of cheerleading experience and training, would NOT be better than the field, maybe middle of the pack, maybe bottom of the pack. So no one would EXPECT you to go out and beat all the top cheerleaders when everyone knows you didn't have the same opportunities to learn cheerleading the way they did.
If some idiot were to say, look see that proves that Tommy can't compete with the women then that would be the wrong way to look at it. What it proved is that Tommy isn't YET ready to compete with the top women on equal footing. Give Tommy a chance to train and compete in the same way then MAYBE Tommy will become a world class cheerleader. But bar him and it's almost a certainty that he will NEVER become a world class cheerleader.
Now, if Tommy manages to break the gender barrier and pioneers equal competition then perhaps it inspires more men to take up cheerleading and in ten years or so the rankings of top cheerleaders would have an much higher mix of men and women and in 15 years maybe the #1 cheerleader would be a man. And maybe someday that man would be president.