Originally Posted by Seth C.
As for the question of what level of success women can have in competing with men in pool, I would offer only the suggestion that those who are open to thinking about it (as opposed to those who have formed their opinions and are no longer in thinking mode) give some consideration to the fact that far, far fewer girls/women play pool than do boys/men. So, the experience to date regarding the frequency and quality of play of women in men's events doesn't really say that much about how women would fare against men were an equal number of women (and the same mix of women as men, in terms of coordination, athleticism, etc.) to play, and were they exposed to the same teaching, competition, etc. to which men are exposed.
You seem to be ignoring the idea that the things that make women women are likely the same things that result in them not as frequently being exposed to the same teaching, competition, etc. to which men are exposed. A more interesting bit of research would be to figure out how many men and women play pool on a *regular* basis...say at least a certain number of hours per week. Then look at the percentage of men that are "A" players and the percentage of women that are "A" players. We should expect based on your reasoning that the percentages would be the same. (In other words # of A player women over number of women playing, etc.) I strongly doubt the percentages would be the same. There are likely many reasons for this, but whatever those reasons are does not change the data. It would be very interesting for sure though.
KMRUNOUT
Actually, I wasn't addressing the question of whether the play of women, on an average and/or a highest performer basis, could/would approach, equal or exceed the play of men, in pool. I was making only the simple point that, because of the significant disparity in participation levels (at least in raw numbers, and perhaps also in the makeup of participant pools) as between boys/men and girls/women, the commonly observation fact that few women have succeeded in competition against men really doesn't mean much.
As for your main contention, which seems to be that women are biologically wired in a way that makes them incapable of competing with men (again, on average and, proportionately, at the highest achiever level) in all but a narrow range of pursuits, I note that you offer no studies or research results, and instead seem to place total trust in your sense of things. It also appears, as noted by John Barton, that you seem to be saying that women are not as intelligent as men. It is unclear to me whether you hold that view only with respect to intelligence as it relates to "problem solving," or also with respect to all subjects save for those relating to nurturing and the pursuits for which you believe that women are biologically better suited than men, and I don't want to overstate or misstate your point of view. I'm really responding only to correct your misstatement or misunderstanding of mine.
If we are going to deal in anecdotes, I would second another observation offered by Mr. Barton, which is that it would seem that the high achievements of certain women in certain pursuits is particularly meaningful given the obstacles and forces (social and cultural, in particular) that they have faced and continue to face (they are still taught to be cheerleaders for male competitors -- just think about that)(also, look at the website home page of Diamond Billiards, where the American 14.1 was just held -- it depicts a man helping a woman make a basic stroke. Think we are still socializing women in a way to make them question whether they are inferior??).
I would also suggest, for two reasons, that you revisit your statement that "If men and women were equal in abilities you should see performance that is commensurate with participation, but that isn't what you see, ever." First, because, as you yourself have elsewhere in this thread, effective studies on the questions being debated haven't been performed. How can you say that the necessary studies haven't been done, yet then assert that you'd bet your ranch that women will never be able to compete? Second, because the information and experience that we do have disproves your point. Two among many examples are these:
(1) Marie Curie. From among many bios on the web:
"Born Maria Sklodowska on November 7, 1867, in Warsaw, Poland, Marie Curie became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize and the only woman to win the award in two different fields (physics and chemistry). Curie's efforts, with her husband Pierre Curie, led to the discovery of polonium and radium and, after Pierre's death, the development of X-rays. She died on July 4, 1934.
"A top student in her secondary school, Curie could not attend the men-only University of Warsaw. She instead continued her education in Warsaw's "floating university," a set of underground, informal classes held in secret. Both Curie and her sister Bronya dreamed of going abroad to earn an official degree, but they lacked the financial resources to pay for more schooling. Undeterred, Curie worked out a deal with her sister. She would work to support Bronya while she was in school and Bronya would return the favor after she completed her studies.
"For roughly five years, Curie worked as a tutor and a governess. She used her spare time to study, reading about physics, chemistry and math. In 1891, Curie finally made her way to Paris where she enrolled at the Sorbonne in Paris. She threw herself into her studies, but this dedication had a personal cost. With little money, Curie survived on buttered bread and tea, and her health sometimes suffered because of her poor diet."
Seems that this woman's problem solving capabilities were pretty good. Also seems that -- again, if we are going to deal in anecdotes -- that proportionality was more than present.. Here is a woman who made it all the way to the top of a field into which women were not even permitted to enter! One could actually argue that this is evidence of disproportionality pointing toward women having superior capabilities. At a minimum, the example of Marie Curie takes out your "that isn't what you see, ever" comment.
(2) Karen Corr! Bringing things back to pool, Karen doesn't even play straight pool, yet she reached the finals of a high level men's event. Seems that she must have solved a few problem racks along the way.
There were plenty of quality matches for sure. It's too bad the Karen vs Kevin Clark match was on the left of the TV table instead of live-streamed. That was a "QUALITY" match for sure 
