Yes, that is exactly the issue. Women in pool, women playing high level pool, is delayed, just like women's participation in lots of areas in society has been delayed. That's why we celebrate every achievement that brings the two genders closer in performance in the areas where physicality isn't the barrier.
The question then is, what is preventing women's pool from reaching it's maximum potential at any given time? We agree the overall level increases for both men and women each decade and era? Yes? If so, then women will always be playing catch up and will never meet or beat the men.
That said, we would have to identify something that is keeping women's pool down in the current era. I know of no such thing. I argued there is nothing hold them back, impeding their growth or development to account for the proved skill gap.
In fact, I argued that compared to the men, the women actually have more incentives, benefits and the infrastructure to advance than men do. Having a tour, having sponsorship and such.
I would interested to see what the IPT fargo rate performances were. That said there were a handful of women against well over a hundred men.
What does the quantity matter? That undermines your pro-Fargo position. The women that were there were the best of the best women players. No one was left out.
So yes the IPT was certainly a chance for men and women to compete under the same conditions. But the odds were stacked against them even if they had had a higher average skill level. Still the best women pros held their own even if they lost.
What was it that was stacked against anyone at the IPT?
The IPT was fair and square. No advantages to anyone during the tournament.
The round robin format allowed the ladies and anyone for that matter, to avoid a fluke or blow-out to skew perceptions and conclusions.
If anything, the women got a big time pass being invited to the tournament to begin with, not having to qualify, while many men pros were invited also, the vast majority of the invited men proved their invite by their performance in the tournament (less the HOF's who were obviously past their prime). The women on the other hand, proved their invite to be a hand-out essentially.
It was very telling to watch many male pros who had to qualify for the tournament basically demolish these female players who got a free-pass to be in the IPT.
Had the IPT survived, the vast majority of the women players would have been ranked out of tour-card position and lost their place on the tour. It would have taken a season or two because having a tour card guaranteed entry into tournaments where they were automatically willing the default number of dollars, but it was inevitable due to the qualifiers who would push them out.
Anyway, at best all you say is that they are better now. I agree they are better now not only relative to the past, but relative to past male vs female gap and the current male level of play. They did close the gap some, but it's still a large gap. And, I will go as far as to say they will NEVER close the gap entirely and achieve parity with the men. That's not some big daring statement. I say so with the knowledge that if they do, it will be the first time in competitive anything that it has happened. Since such a thing has never been observed yet, it's safe to say it never will and there's a lot of real science that supports the reasons why.
I bring that up because you mentioned the lack of a physical factor in pool. Your statement acknowledges that strength and speed does matter. I agree and even said that women do compete closer with the men as the physical factor is decreased. Less athleticism needed, closer competition relatively speaking.
But this does not make up for the gap. Chess is a great example. Darts too. There are non-physical factors too. Men's brains are superior at processing 3d space. Men understand space, proportion, distance and such much better than women. They are also better at mentally processing speed and timing. This is likely a product of evolution, as men had to be able to throw, sling or shoot things accurately if they wanted to hunt and eat and survive. Men have better hand-eye-coordination. Not only that, but how quickly a male hones those skills is much sooner than a female. Male players pick up the game faster, which in a structured training means that men will have more practice and training time for higher level skills.
This spatial processing advantage for men is also why men dominate in engineering, particularly mechanical. Men also have a huge advantage in conceptualizing abstract constructs. Which is why men are more advanced on average than women in mathematics and why they also dominate computer programming.
All of this allows men to "see" angles better, space better, speed better, and also the visualization of the shot in a more realistic and real way prior to executing the shot. The visualization of shots in pool play back more like a real movie or video in the male mind than they do in the female mind, again on average.
There's exceptions to everything and some very exceptional women. However, on average this is the truth. And, when speaking about the best-of-the-best, it again is always, exclusively men.
This is backed by science and experimentation.
That is why the gap will never be closed completely.
I used to believe like some do on this forum. The way I used to rationalize it was ....the CB is 5.5-6.0 ounces. 99.9% of shots require a stroke speed that is already within the ability of women to physically execute. Even breaks now as the power break is essentially dead thanks to better balls, rack templates and knowledge of softer control breaks. I assumed stroke precision was not a matter of physical strength or size. Something that women could master as equally as the men.
The table is at a height that poses no disadvantage for women. There are male players who are quite short who won major tournaments. There is nothing about the weight of the balls, size of the table or cues, the weight of anything or anything about the nature of the game which favors men, that is favors size, strength or athleticism. Women can interface with pool just as well as men with no hindrance.
That said - I was 100% convinced that a woman should be able to equal a man in pool. There's nothing holding them back.
But I followed pool for years, and after 30 years of watching men and women and comparing there was no way. The results, which is the evidence did not support my conclusions or theory. There was something else involved here. So I began to read on the subject. I began to read a lot of psychology studies and the such that focused on male/female brain differences. This was an eye opener, as there are real significant differences and these differences directly impact performance.
I like to see the women advance as much as possible. But at the same time I am not hoping for the impossible or deluding myself with fantasies.
