Exactly. Off base liberal question lol anyone can be a shipping manager.
Men vs Women
- Thread starter Cornerman
- Start date
After many posts, the lesson I have gleaned is that mins are more devoted to balls. Makes sinc and I believe such.
Ghost of OBC
Well-known member
It is our eyesight. Men have vision that is more receptive to small details and movement, but less receptive to differences in color. Women should be better at distinguishing the 4 from the 8, but less good at picking out an aim point on an object ball a table away.
https://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html
https://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html
Soccer/football seems to have made some progress. From the very interesting book, "Deep Pockets" which is mostly about snooker, we have this report about women who tried to play a football match in England in the 1880s:
The match, in any case, did not last the distance. After about an hour, an angry mob invaded the field [as reported in a newspaper at the time]:
At length, a great rush was made by those occupying the higher land, and the football ground was speedily taken possession of by the mob. Apprehending a repetition of the rough treatment they have met with in other parts of the country, the women no sooner heard the clamour which accompanied the rush than they also took to their heels and ran to where the wagonette was standing. This they reached before the crowd could overtake them and amid the jeers of the multitude and much disorder they were immediately driven away.
And all they wanted to do was play soccer.
Obviously, the release action process would have to begin much before actual tip contact. And, a very loose grip earlier would admittedly likely reduce cue speed on contact. But, again assuming identical cue speed, the ‘action/reaction’ rule of physics would indicate that energy would be lost in the cue’s increased deceleration, thus reducing CB speed (though likely minutely).
Good article. It points to something that has made sense to me, and that is the evolutionary traits that make men inherently more aggressive and gives them more of a "killer instinct". This is always going to be an advantage in competition.
Why are only two of the world’s top 100 chess players women? | Aeon Essays
Little girls sign up to play chess in droves. So why are so few of the world’s top players women?aeon.co
This is likely why men still dominate in sports or games or whatever that do not take advantage of the fact that male humans are typically stronger.
Last edited:
Females are not smaller than males in most mammal species
The idea that male mammals are larger than females has persisted for more than a century, but an analysis of body mass and length in 400 mammal species shows it isn’t the norm
www.newscientist.com
New estimates indicate that males are not larger than females in most mammals
Sexual size dimorphism (SSD) has motivated a large body of research on mammalian mating strategies and sexual selection. Despite some contrary evidence, the narrative that larger males are the norm in mammals – upheld since Darwin’s Descent of Man – still dominates today, supported by...
doi.org
“Females are larger than males in more species of mammals than is generally supposed. This includes many species of bats, shrews, Tasmanian devils, spider monkeys, flying squirrels, grey whales, humpback whales, hyenas, mongoose, Ross seal, tapirs, west Indian manatees, hippopotamus, dikdiks, okapis, and various mice.”
Well, the one thing that I could never figure out was why we never saw much higher runs much more frequently from women in straight pool. Honestly, the pro 14.1 tournaments over the last 25 years- I have seen many of them here in the U.S. - rarely see any high runs on the women's side.
I would imagine women are just as capable as men in 14.1- but it has rarely shown in the history of the game. I never even here of high runs from women in Europe or Asia. Just puzzled.
I would imagine women are just as capable as men in 14.1- but it has rarely shown in the history of the game. I never even here of high runs from women in Europe or Asia. Just puzzled.
The vast majority of times F=MA is invoked in pool and blilliards, it’s misused and misunderstood. This is one of those times. Your acceleration at the early stage of your stroke is pretty high, while your acceleration (in the X direction) is about zero at contact. You want to be talking about velocity (speed in the X direction) or momentum (mass x velocity).
This argument doesn't hold water.
The statistics and the advertising usually conflict with who controls messaging for the general population.
Some use the advertising to push a specific value: Pool for example is a great individual thinking sport with live competitions.
Some use the advertising to push statistics like: The biggest disruption to the pool world are the requests of the ACBS.
In pool the competition is between nations more than genders. The Filipino programs are very different than the American (as a foreign exchange) programs. Both produce amazing results at scale.
Men versus women it would be fun to line up all the men that suffered defeat to top women on tour. Get some facials of the guys as they realize they are outmatched. What do all the men that lose to a woman have in common? Who are the best male beaters? Which man has lost the most to the same woman?
Yep, women have the potential to be just as good in this sport. This is not football, or track and field.
Interesting that when comparing percentages of women in the top X of various activities (tennis, 5000m run) he makes up the descending curve for those activities ("we can imagine it looks like this"). Then for pool he shows a fairly uniform percentage...but then he stops at Fargo 730. Earlier in that same video he said there were 48 women in the top 1000, but only 1 in the top 100. That would suggest a descending curve at the tippy-top. Yet, he still chose to stop that analysis at 730.
One alternative interpretation is that the physical advantages men have over women (in general) can be compensated for and are not super relevant until the very top. For example, strength is good for a powerful break. You can't break and run if you don't make a ball. And people who break with less power are less likely to make a ball (I'm thinking primarily 8b and 10b here, as we all know the tricks around 9b breaks).
He also uses a comparison with Alex Pagulayan, all 5'4 of him, and a taller player, and claims that no one would make a biological difference argument unless Alex was the considerably worse player. First, anecdotes are not convincing in general, but secondly I think it's pretty clear that height is an advantage in pool, to a point. Being able to comfortably reach more shots is an advantage. But that advantage likely tops out around 6'2 or so. And of course, it's not nearly the overwhelming advantage that height is in, say, basketball. It's more of a mild benefit in the overall scheme of things. Alex's existence does not disprove anything about height any more than Muggsy Bogues' existence proves height is not an advantage in the NBA. But the fact that there are very few great pool players 5'6" and below, particularly given pool's popularity in a few Asian countries, shows that height is an asset.
And of course, height is another physical attribute that differs between men and women.
Finally, he made a bald assertion about the relative numbers of male and female players explaining the difference at the top, without going into any numbers. I've played on various leagues around the country and the percentage of women in those leagues is much higher than the 3% or so number he found as the percentage of women among the top players (what he had as 570+). If the participation rate of women was 3% and only 3% of women were in the top 10,000 players then that would be something. But he doesn't go into any numbers, and I would be willing to bet substantial sums that the participation rate of women amongst all pool players is higher than 3%.
All told I felt he made some good points, but only really demonstrated that pool as a game is less disadvantageous to women as other more purely physical pursuits, but he jumped the gun with his conclusion that there is no evidence of any differences between the sexes. A more complete analysis, using data he presumably has access to, could prove his point...but I'm guessing if it did then it would have been presented. I feel like I just watched a piece designed with an agenda-driven conclusion in mind.
HOW DARE YOU ! LOL
in theory there should be few other things than break power, but in reality there are other, less tangible factors such as aggressiveness, risk taking, competitiveness. kelly fisher made some good and well reasoned points about this matter when she was in the predator commentary booth (last year sometime).
on the flip side, the women present themselves better and have fewer controversies..
Yes, and Kristina Tkach also had an opinion about this topic on Joey Ryan's podcast.
She had trouble not laughing when asked if women could ever compete with the top men players.
There are multiple reasons, some of which are noted in this thread.
The main reason, other than aggressiveness, a major difference, imo, is strength.
When does your stroke tend to break down?
Negligible
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Which one's been married the longest?