Siming Chen vs Donny Mills

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.




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.




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.

GC, you are a politically correct heretic and don't expect to work in media anytime soon.

Even if you are occupying the very margins of media you can't tell the truth. Violations of PC culture, equals end to career.
 
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.




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.




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.

Anytime and EVERYTIME Siming plays a man outside top 50 Fargo why dont we bet $500 per match. Surely you cant say that's not fair considering how bad women play and how they have and never will have any chance of beating men.
Jason
 
Anytime and EVERYTIME Siming plays a man outside top 50 Fargo why dont we bet $500 per match. Surely you cant say that's not fair considering how bad women play and how they have and never will have any chance of beating men.
Jason

Here you have resorted to a strawman argument.

The rest of your comments are laden with emotion.

Try and think. Read. Breathe.


I am not saying that she cannot beat ANY man, or any male pro for that matter.


Your statement actually backs what I argued even though you think your challenge is in opposition to what I said . You admit there's likely 50 male pros that are better.


Some people look at her and say "see, see women can hold their own with the men" ...

This is flawed.

A few problems with that. First, we should remember she is the best of her gender. To take that and extend it to the rest of her gender is inaccurate. Secondly, while her skill level lands her within the men - it doesn't land her within the top echelon of men. Not even close. Finally, to see her Fargo rating and her skill level and how it compares to the men it is extremely easy to make the assumption that women have arrived. In reality, when looking at the rankings as well as the skill levels, the fact that she isn't better than (at least 50 men according to you) yet is the single best female player is evidence of a big skill gap.

Skill levels work on a sort of curve. It isn't always like a bell curve, but close. A smaller and smaller percentage are toward the most elite.

She is an ELITE female player. The fact that such a very low percentage segment of the female players could only reach a level at which there's at least 50 male pros or more who are better indicates again, there's a large gap. She isn't just a segment, she is the pinnacle!

If you understand how these curves work, you and JB would better understand the difference.


I do admit though, that on the surface it doesn't seem so, but it is. It's like the lotto...doesn't look anywhere near as hard as it is to pick 6 numbers of out 50. Now, please do not construe this metaphor to suggest woman players are lottery odds behind men. Not saying that at all. Only how deceiving things can appear on the surface. Or how similar two things can look, but are not the same.

Most importantly, how close two things can appear to be - but relatively speaking and statistically, they are quite far apart.
 
Here you have resorted to a strawman argument.

The rest of your comments are laden with emotion.

Try and think. Read. Breathe.


I am not saying that she cannot beat ANY man, or any male pro for that matter.


Your statement actually backs what I argued even though you think your challenge is in opposition to what I said . You admit there's likely 50 male pros that are better.


Some people look at her and say "see, see women can hold their own with the men" ...

This is flawed.

A few problems with that. First, we should remember she is the best of her gender. To take that and extend it to the rest of her gender is inaccurate. Secondly, while her skill level lands her within the men - it doesn't land her within the top echelon of men. Not even close. Finally, to see her Fargo rating and her skill level and how it compares to the men it is extremely easy to make the assumption that women have arrived. In reality, when looking at the rankings as well as the skill levels, the fact that she isn't better than (at least 50 men according to you) yet is the single best female player is evidence of a big skill gap.

Skill levels work on a sort of curve. It isn't always like a bell curve, but close. A smaller and smaller percentage are toward the most elite.

She is an ELITE female player. The fact that such a very low percentage segment of the female players could only reach a level at which there's at least 50 male pros or more who are better indicates again, there's a large gap. She isn't just a segment, she is the pinnacle!

If you understand how these curves work, you and JB would better understand the difference.


I do admit though, that on the surface it doesn't seem so, but it is. It's like the lotto...doesn't look anywhere near as hard as it is to pick 6 numbers of out 50. Now, please do not construe this metaphor to suggest woman players are lottery odds behind men. Not saying that at all. Only how deceiving things can appear on the surface. Or how similar two things can look, but are not the same.

Most importantly, how close two things can appear to be - but relatively speaking and statistically, they are quite far apart.

So, do you want to bet or not? No emotion, I just want to gamble.
Jason
 
Here you have resorted to a strawman argument.

The rest of your comments are laden with emotion.

Try and think. Read. Breathe.


I am not saying that she cannot beat ANY man, or any male pro for that matter.


Your statement actually backs what I argued even though you think your challenge is in opposition to what I said . You admit there's likely 50 male pros that are better.


Some people look at her and say "see, see women can hold their own with the men" ...

This is flawed.

A few problems with that. First, we should remember she is the best of her gender. To take that and extend it to the rest of her gender is inaccurate. Secondly, while her skill level lands her within the men - it doesn't land her within the top echelon of men. Not even close. Finally, to see her Fargo rating and her skill level and how it compares to the men it is extremely easy to make the assumption that women have arrived. In reality, when looking at the rankings as well as the skill levels, the fact that she isn't better than (at least 50 men according to you) yet is the single best female player is evidence of a big skill gap.

Skill levels work on a sort of curve. It isn't always like a bell curve, but close. A smaller and smaller percentage are toward the most elite.

She is an ELITE female player. The fact that such a very low percentage segment of the female players could only reach a level at which there's at least 50 male pros or more who are better indicates again, there's a large gap. She isn't just a segment, she is the pinnacle!

If you understand how these curves work, you and JB would better understand the difference.


I do admit though, that on the surface it doesn't seem so, but it is. It's like the lotto...doesn't look anywhere near as hard as it is to pick 6 numbers of out 50. Now, please do not construe this metaphor to suggest woman players are lottery odds behind men. Not saying that at all. Only how deceiving things can appear on the surface. Or how similar two things can look, but are not the same.

Most importantly, how close two things can appear to be - but relatively speaking and statistically, they are quite far apart.

I guess I can't understand how being solidly among the top 100 rated pool players breathing, around 50, and sharing that rating with bonafide CHAMPIONS doesn't qualify as close, really close, YOU ROCK, or among the world's best.

Siming is an ELITE pool player. She is absolutely on par with all but a handful of American men and IS among the top 50 in the world.

She represents the current top end of her gender but ALSO is indicative of the improvement in skill level of women in general. She is not an outlier just the best of the new generation of women coming into the game.

This would be patently clear if one were to look at the fargo rate averages from 10 years ago...Mike probably has enough to data to make that comparison and the fargo ratings averages for women now.
 
She should stay here the next year and gamble with the top 50 US men

Then she will be a killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
She should stay here the next year and gamble with the top 50 US men

Then she will be a killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She'd be able to retire. If she wants to improve she needs to be playing the other horses in Roy's basement
Jason
 
She is an ELITE female player. The fact that such a very low percentage segment of the female players could only reach a level at which there's at least 50 male pros or more who are better indicates again, there's a large gap. She isn't just a segment, she is the pinnacle!

Last I checked, there are something like 10x the amount of men than women even TAKING up the game in the first place, so for there to be any women whatsoever in the top 500 worldwide is a stunning accomplishment, and Siming has FAR outstripped that mark. And to be ANYWHERE in the top 500 of all players worldwide, in ANY game/sport, is a pinnacle that I am not sure ANY woman has achieved in ANY sport/game, including Jean Balukas.

What we take umbrage with is people like you that constantly try to remind everyone just how far a skill gap there is, when she is VASTLY outperforming the statistics, given how many total women play the game competitively, period. It really does paint you as a woman-hater.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. There're a ton of us out here celebrating her every win, and who are aware of the idea that every win over a top male encourages more women to take up the game. Your constant naysaying serves absolutely no purpose.
 
Last edited:
Last I checked, there are something like 10x the amount of men than women even TAKING up the game in the first place, so for there to be any women whatsoever in the top 500 worldwide is a stunning accomplishment, and Siming has FAR outstripped that mark.

What we take umbrage with is people like you that constantly try to remind everyone just how far a skill gap there is, when she is VASTLY outperforming the statistics, given how many total women play the game competitively, period. It really does paint you as a woman-hater.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. There're a ton of us out here celebrating her every win, and who are aware of the idea that every win over a top male encourages more women to take up the game. Your constant naysaying serves absolutely no purpose.

I didn't see him betting the match either. - you know, that whole put your money where your mouth is thing
Jason
 
Thanks That means only a very small percentage of players are actually established.

The question was brought up earlier in the thread whether Donny played better than expected or if Siming played worse than expected. How can this be determined with only 2 players? Someone posted that Donny missed 3 outs to win the 2nd set. By that I would assume he didn’t play up to his capabilities, We all do this sometimes.

I was working and didn’t get to watch the match.

A race to 21 between them where the odds are 54.5% for Siming to win and 45.5% for Donny is predicted to end up with a score of 21-17 for Siming IF both play to their rating. So anything less than winning by that margin means Siming played below expectation and that Donny played above expectation.

But the match odds change with every game. Every game played literally means a new race starts from the next break. That's why Fargo isn't really concerned with races and is focused on games. It's counterintuitive but the best player in a tournament might not be the one who wins the tournament but instead is the one who had the strongest record against his opponents.

As Mike said one set, two sets relatively small amounts of games aren't enough to prove much about a player's true average. That only comes when there are hundreds of games against lots of opponents. In the case of the pros there are often thousands of games to draw from. That's when it gets interesting and Fargo wouldn't be worth anything if mining the data of past performance couldn't be used to predict likely future outcomes within an acceptable standard deviation.

This is akin to the same way that people who have a LOT of data about you can predict fairly accurately how you will react to any given situation. In fact Facebook can tell not only that a person is manic depressive but can also predict when a person is about to enter a manic phase.

It's not "fun" to think that a person can be reduced to a number that represents their relative skill when we all know what it takes to really excel at this sport. We prefer the gunslinger stories about stepping up and outrunning the nuts and showing heart and coming with it..... But we all know that players have been rated and labeled forever. Even in the 1800s people were matching up with handicaps because skill level disparity was clear then as well. The only difference now is that we have ways to keep records and analyze the data using number crunching algorithms that can be freakishly complicated because we have the processing power to handle that volume of information.

I am a huge proponent of Fargo ratings but frankly it is a bit disheartening to know EXACTLY how far away I am from pro speed. I preferred to indulge my imagination and think that I could've been a contender every time I managed to run three racks. But now that I have truly accurate numbers to attach to the skill I see on display I understand that in order to have had any chance to be a contender I would have had to have put in WAY more time and been lucky enough to have people around me able to teach me pool from a world class level. So at least now I have a realistic idea of where I stand compared to everyone else and while it's too late for me to be able to put in the time or effort to get better by any significant magnitude I really think that Fargo Ratings can be an excellent benchmark for new players to track their progress.
 
She should stay here the next year and gamble with the top 50 US men

Then she will be a killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then she will be a killer? She is already a killer.

Should Sky gamble with the top 50 USA men to become a "killer"?

My thought is line them up.

But fwiw I do agree with you that more experience against players of her caliber would definitely keep her sharp and likely improve her game.

John Schmidt said if the top USA players all moved to florida and played each other constantly then they would all be better.

I said years ago about Kelly Fisher that if I had the money then I would take her on the road and let her play sets against the top men players on one condition that they agree to one set on the way across the country and another on the way back but for twice as much on the second set. That was long before Fargo came around. I do fully believe that the experience would absolutely have made her a stronger player just like me playing stronger players teaches me shots and patterns that I don't see from players my speed or lower.

And to be clear when I say "if I had the money" I am talking about hundreds of thousands to spend on various experiments just to see what would happen with no expectation of making a profit. I don't think that Kelly would have dominated on the return trip but I do think that everyone involved would likely have seen that she was playing stronger and she would have likely been harder to beat on the rebound matches.

Of course knowing what we know now....that Kelly is a 740 and the low end of the men's range is in the 740s....it would be interesting to see if her rating would have been able to increase by 20-40 points based on that amount of play against players her speed or better. Or would it have been a losing trip because the skill level gaps were too great to close at that point in her life?
 
She'd be able to retire. If she wants to improve she needs to be playing the other horses in Roy's basement
Jason

Shouldn’t she first pick off the low hanging fruit before matching up with the big dogs? Kinda funny calling Donny low hanging fruit.
 
Last I checked, there are something like 10x the amount of men than women even TAKING up the game in the first place, so for there to be any women whatsoever in the top 500 worldwide is a stunning accomplishment, and Siming has FAR outstripped that mark. And to be ANYWHERE in the top 500 of all players worldwide, in ANY game/sport, is a pinnacle that I am not sure ANY woman has achieved in ANY sport/game, including Jean Balukas.

What we take umbrage with is people like you that constantly try to remind everyone just how far a skill gap there is, when she is VASTLY outperforming the statistics, given how many total women play the game competitively, period. It really does paint you as a woman-hater.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. There're a ton of us out here celebrating her every win, and who are aware of the idea that every win over a top male encourages more women to take up the game. Your constant naysaying serves absolutely no purpose.

Quit the hysterics. You are engaging in gender propaganda. Siming like I've said is no regular female player like those found in America. The Chinese government subsidizes its athletes.

I bet American female pool players would play a lot better if they never needed to work.
 
Quit the hysterics. You are engaging in gender propaganda. Siming like I've said is no regular female player like those found in America. The Chinese government subsidizes its athletes.

I bet American female pool players would play a lot better if they never needed to work.

This has to be the biggest joke ever. She played one person that has a job, most male players(USA) dont have a job and yet all but 4 of them are rated below her, so get off this subsidized crap.
Jason
 
I MUST say that she has the best fundamentals of anyone alive! Yes, that includes efren, busti, orcollo, biado and lee van corteza ....

Her mechanics are that good! Almost a machine! Only weakness is the break and it ain't that bad...

I would love to see her play straight pool! She might embrace Mr. 400 if she had a good straight pool teacher!!!

Kd
Kd

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
This has to be the biggest joke ever. She played one person that has a job, most male players(USA) dont have a job and yet all but 4 of them are rated below her, so get off this subsidized crap.
Jason

Looks like she took a big risk. Donny is a working schlep and his Fargo is under hers.

When women can play at parity with men then they will, until that time they won't.

There is a lot of gender hysteria these days with biological boys running in girl's track events and taking down the wins.

Can top male players put on wigs and lipstick and compete in women's tournaments?

You just discount so easily the power of being subsidized by a state. Some of our top male players can barely afford to compete.

In your make believe world being subsidized is no advantage.
 
Looks like she took a big risk. Donny is a working schlep and his Fargo is under hers.

When women can play at parity with men then they will, until that time they won't.

There is a lot of gender hysteria these days with biological boys running in girl's track events and taking down the wins.

Can top male players put on wigs and lipstick and compete in women's tournaments?

You just discount so easily the power of being subsidized by a state. Some of our top male players can barely afford to compete.

In your make believe world being subsidized is no advantage.

And in your dreamland being subsidized automatically makes you number one.
Jason
 
Back
Top