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.
I don't know what you mean by stopping the analysis at 730. I'm presenting all the data as clearly as I can. The top 8,000 players, roughly the top 10% of established players, are 3% women. That's down from the roughly 10% women in the entire population, consistent with much observed fact that men play better than women.
I was pointing out that it is interesting when you examine that 10% --the elite tail--more closely. If the women were following a bell curve that is shifted from that of the men (what the big picture looks like), then you would expect going from the 10% elite (8,000 players) to the 1% elite (800 players) would get rid of all or nearly all the women. It doesn't. Then when you go from the 1% elite (800 players) to the 0.1% elite (80 players), you still find a few women. This is a very unexpected finding for those who think men have some inherent advantage, whether it is temperment or strength or coordination or focus or whatever. You can go the next step, to the top 0.01% of established players (8 players) and there are no women. But we expect there to be no women because 3% of 8 is far less than a single player.
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).
Isn't the top 1% or the top 0.1% the very top? There is no hint of a decline using any numbers that are not so small that the fluctuations get you. The other interesting observation is the top women players in Taiwan (population twentyish million) match just fine with the top men players in many other twenty million-ish populations (like Florida) that we think do a fine job producing good pool players. That just wouldn't happen if there was some appreciably sized effect.
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.
People generally seem to have not gotten the point about the Alex comparison. It's not about height. I don't care--at this point--whether height matters. It's about addressing a common problematic decisional approach that people apply to this issue.
Why are there few women amongst the top pool players?
Why are there few Portuguese amongst the top hockey players?
Why are there few Asians amongst the top snooker players (or North Americans or Continental Europeans)
Why are there few Japanese amongst the top chess players.
It is possible Japanese are not as smart as Ukrainians or Portuguese are not as fast and dexterous as their northern neighbors. But we realize we're a long long way from getting to those subtleties. And we wouldn't put them on the table until we were thoroughly convinced the "Portuguese don't really play hockey" and "Japanese care less about chess" explanations don't work.
With men v women, it has become fashionable to jump right to a series of claims about strength or focus or whatever "explaining" the observations. And some of those claims derive in part from the very data that is being assessed. The data show it is more complicated than that.
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%.
Yes of course. The overall participation rate judged by games going into FargoRate is close to 10%. What numbers do you think would be helpful?
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.[...]
We are looking for evidence from the data for an inherent difference, and we haven't yet found it. If it starts to emerge, we will say so.
