Siming Chen

[Poolplaya9]

Ok I will make you a deal. I will name 1000 things Women are better at than men. You pay me $1 for every one that is correct by vote. I pay you $1 for everyone voted not correct or $1 for each one if I can’t name at least 1 thousand. We both post $1000 to a reliable member. Good chance to prove your points and make a chunk of money.

It is almost tempting just to see you waste your time. Even if you were able to come up with 1,000 (or much more than that because you had make up for all the ones you were wrong about) the time and effort involved sure wouldn't have been worth $1,000. Further goes to show how much sense you have along with the erroneous list you tried to submit previously and the other stupid things you say. And it is clear that trying to negotiate terms with you for anything remotely along these lines would be a nightmare. You would be like JB #2. Certainly not worth my time.

But the main reason is that it doesn't even address the claim I was making which you would know if you had any sense or used it. My point wasn't that there are only 2 things or 16 things or 3,464 things or any other arbitrary number of things that women are better at than men. My point was that the number of things women were better at would be less than the number men are better at by a substantial margin, massive even. And if you start trying to think of the one's women are better at you quickly realize this which was the whole reason I posed the question.

Now if you wanted to bet on if you could name more things that women are better at than the things that men are better at (or even anywhere in the remote vicinity of the same amount) then that would actually be much more applicable to what I said. Still isn't worth the headache to me though, and there is pretty much zero chance you would do it anyway (if you had even three brain cells and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't completely looney tunes).

As knowledgeable and as sure as you are I know you can’t refuse or it will prove you are as dumb as you sound.

You haven't even proven a single thing I have said is wrong, much less that I am dumb. Mighty big leap of [lack of] logic there considering.

 

[highkarate]

If you've ever watched this woman play and you think she couldn't beat a man in her fargo rate class in a long race, you are either severely underestimating her play or severely overestimating the man's play. I would be curious to know Ariel Roy Francisco's take on this.

 

[Poolplaya9]

It is exactly what you said, and you said it repeatedly. You said that men are innately better than women at billions of things, and that women are only better than men at babies. Everything else - billions of things! - men are innately better.

Once again, you could only arrive at the conclusion (particularly after it has already been pointed out to you) if didn't read all of what I wrote, you are horrible at comprehension, or you intentionally tried to ignore part of what i said and are intentionally trying to remove context. People shouldn't have to teach you how to read and comprehend to be able to have a discussion with you but here I am having to do it.

Here are a few quotes from post 497 and there are more in that post and elsewhere that directly refute your "just babies" claim:

"...women specifically evolved to excel at emotion (particularly sympathy), communication, and cooperation."
Pretty ridiculous to sit there and say that I am saying "only babies" when I specifically named three more things myself besides babies, don't you think? Not that those are the only three but it was three that I had specifically named myself right there in black and white. Do you even read?

"The truth of the matter is that there are very few things unrelated to rearing children where the premium on sympathy, communication or cooperation is so high that women will be able to out perform men on net."
See where it says "very few things"? That is me explicitly saying there are other things women are better at besides babies/rearing children.

"To be clear this is not to say that men can't excel at rearing children, or that women can’t excel at most other things. They can. It's just that because of our relative strengths, the best, as well as best on average, at rearing children will almost always be women, and the best, as well as best on average, at most other things will almost always be men."
See where is says "most other things"? That means there are other things besides babies where women are better. See where it says "almost always"? That is me saying that women are better at some of the non-baby things.

Over and over and over I explicitly said there were other things aside from babies that women were better at. I had even named some of them for goodness sake. Yet for some reason here we are with you telling me I said something different. We all brain fart or are lazier than we should have been and fail to comprehend something from time to time. It happens, and normally it is no big deal. But when it is on something this glaringly obvious, it was either done intentionally, or as a result of way more than a normal amount of reading laziness and we should be taken to task for it, particularly when it has already been pointed out to you and you were still doing it anyway.

 

[wayne]

if you didn't read all of what I wrote,[/I].

.......Trust me and I say this with almost total certainty “No one has read all that you wrote”.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

Here are a few quotes from post 497 and there are more in that post and elsewhere that directly refute your "just babies" claim:[...].

Here is the topic sentence of your concluding paragraph in that post

"Women’s strengths are best suited for a very narrow yet vital and time consuming set of endeavors (child rearing and maintaining a household), and men’s strengths are best suited to an equally time consuming but exceptionally broad spectrum of endeavors (everything else that has to be done outside of child rearing and maintaining a household). "

[...]

This is pretty clear.
Women: child rearing and maintaining a household;
MEN, everything else.

I understand that you had words like "Most" rather than "everything" elsewhere, and maybe this stronger statement here isn't what you meant.

But think you should own the fact you said it rather than lob ad-hominem attacks on BRussell as being
lazy,
horrible reading comprehension,
that people shouldn't have to teach him how to read and comprehend,
brain fart,
Do you even read?
reading laziness,

 

[Poolplaya9]

Here is the topic sentence of your concluding paragraph in that post


[...]

This is pretty clear.
Women: child rearing and maintaining a household;
MEN, everything else.

I understand that you had words like "Most" rather than "everything" elsewhere, and maybe this stronger statement here isn't what you meant.

Again, if you try to ignore the other 95% of the post and ignore context, then sure, you can read the topic sentence of the concluding paragraph to mean whatever you want to try to make it mean. I was talking in terms of the biological role that the "biological forces" had in mind for women to most excel at when it was designing women's traits and strengths, not saying women can't excel elsewhere or be better than men at other things (and in fact I explicitly said many times in the post that women can excel elsewhere and are better than men at other things). Another clear indicator in that sentence was that I said "best suited for" and not "only suited for".

I could see it being reasonable for someone to just think that maybe I just left a qualifier of some kind off that sentence because I had already been clear about them before (may have been part of it), or because I simply forgot to add it, or that I was too lazy to type it at that point, or that I was attempting some brevity in that sentence (may have been part of it), but to read it as if I somehow suddenly changed what I was saying and was now claiming that women were literally only good with or better than men at babies when I explicitly spelled out otherwise 50 times before that is silly and more than a stretch.

I stand by what I said. If you (general) read that post with an even half-hearted attempt to understand it and got from it either that I think that women are only good at raising babies, or that they should only raise babies, or that they were not better than men at other things besides raising babies, then it was only because you read what you wanted to read instead of reading what was clearly written. This is getting to be pure silliness from people that are so touchy about and emotionally invested in a topic that they can't even think straight any more.

 

[JB Cases]

If you've ever watched this woman play and you think she couldn't beat a man in her fargo rate class in a long race, you are either severely underestimating her play or severely overestimating the man's play. I would be curious to know Ariel Roy Francisco's take on this.

Ariel's take is pretty clear, step up and bet!

Siming Chen is a pool player. Her gender makes ZERO difference. The balls don't know her sex. The table plays no different because she is a woman.

If she plays ANYONE who is 50 points or more lower than her in even matches where the race is long, say 15 at least, then my money is on her EVERY TIME. I don't care who it is. She might lose some of those sets but in the long run she will win the majority of them.

If she plays ANYONE who is rated the same as her then it's literally a coin flip. My money stays in my pocket unless it's just a small sweat bet for fun.

On that note, when she played Donny a month or so ago; I was updating the chat with real-time match odds after every game. I had already bet $200 from 0-0 on Siming. Donny went 4-1 up and Fargo's match odds had it at 50-50 for either player to win from there. As soon as I typed it a guy jumped on me and said if I really thought Siming had ANY chance to win from there I could bet what I wanted.

Never shy about woofing I said bet 20,000. As I finished typing Siming missed a shot and I quickly typed another post and said Pesos.....

We settled on betting $100 from there. Siming won that game I think and then Donny won the next and then Siming went to 10-5 racing to 15. Fargo predicted from 0-0 that the score would likely end up 15-13 in Siming's favor. And that's what the final score was.

And, the guy who wanted to bet me anything.... he stiffed me for $100.

 

[JB Cases]

Well, I think I’m not really going off topic...
...chess rankings for women reflect the same situation as pool rankings....
....some women are very good and legit grandmasters...
...but none are in the topmost rankings...
...so eliminating the physical, it’s probably how the sexes perceive...
....which is fine with me...that’s why I say “Vive la difference”
...I’m glad my mother didn’t think like Willie Mosconi.

How many women play chess compared to men? There are many variables that go into why women as a group have a lower average than men as a group in some activities where physical strength isn't a factor. One major one is the participation rates. If a woman were to be the best chess player in the world you would need to understand it in two contexts. One what is the chance that ANY given chess player will make it to the very top of the ratings? Extremely small when you look at all chess players.

And the second context is when pulling from a subgroup what is the chance that any player from that group will reach the top rating? Even smaller.

You could pick any subgroup, blonde haired people, one armed players, russians, africans etc.... and then look at the factors that surround their chess development and come up with the odds that anyone from that subgroup would end up as the best chess player in the world.

Russians....well they have a pretty damn robust chess culture so the likelihood that any given Russian player becomes the best player in the world is certainly way higher than any given African.

And the same goes for pool.

Siming Chen's rating and the ratings of other top women players shows how far they have come in a male-dominated sport not how far they can go.

 

[highkarate]

Ariel's take is pretty clear, step up and bet!

Siming Chen is a pool player. Her gender makes ZERO difference. The balls don't know her sex. The table plays no different because she is a woman.

If she plays ANYONE who is 50 points or more lower than her in even matches where the race is long, say 15 at least, then my money is on her EVERY TIME. I don't care who it is. She might lose some of those sets but in the long run she will win the majority of them.

If she plays ANYONE who is rated the same as her then it's literally a coin flip. My money stays in my pocket unless it's just a small sweat bet for fun.

On that note, when she played Donny a month or so ago; I was updating the chat with real-time match odds after every game. I had already bet $200 from 0-0 on Siming. Donny went 4-1 up and Fargo's match odds had it at 50-50 for either player to win from there. As soon as I typed it a guy jumped on me and said if I really thought Siming had ANY chance to win from there I could bet what I wanted.

Never shy about woofing I said bet 20,000. As I finished typing Siming missed a shot and I quickly typed another post and said Pesos.....

We settled on betting $100 from there. Siming won that game I think and then Donny won the next and then Siming went to 10-5 racing to 15. Fargo predicted from 0-0 that the score would likely end up 15-13 in Siming's favor. And that's what the final score was.

And, the guy who wanted to bet me anything.... he stiffed me for $100.

Yeah I watched that match against donny. I'd love to see her in more action against the men, I think it would change a lot of these guy's minds as to her level of play, not that anyone gives a shit what people on here think. In the mean time, I hope Roy just keeps lining his pockets with all their money. By the way Roy if you see this, thanks for all the streaming and constant action you put your horses in. You're a gift to the pool world buddy!

 

[Poolplaya9]

On that note, when she played Donny a month or so ago...

I didn't even know they had played. Just looked it up. Good for her and hopefully her win made a statement to the doubters. I may have been the first person to post on here that I thought she would be favored to beat Donny (many months back), I was certainly in the first group that said it anyway. And contrary to what some people who can't read probably think, I was among if not her biggest defender against the crowd that said she couldn't win because she was female, and that there were dozens or hundreds of guys in the US that would absolutely roast her and other such nonsense.

While I don't think the gender performance disparity gap will ever disappear completely I expect (and hope) that it will get smaller than it is now, and I think it is entirely possible that a lady will win a major at some point.

 

[PoolRookie]

Oscar or sky

I like to see Oscar or Sky play Simen races to 30 nine ball best out of 3 sets. Then everyone would know where she stands. I feel it would be close with both of them.

 

[BRussell]

Once again, you could only arrive at the conclusion (particularly after it has already been pointed out to you) if didn't read all of what I wrote, you are horrible at comprehension, or you intentionally tried to ignore part of what i said and are intentionally trying to remove context. People shouldn't have to teach you how to read and comprehend to be able to have a discussion with you but here I am having to do it.

Here are a few quotes from post 497 and there are more in that post and elsewhere that directly refute your "just babies" claim:

"...women specifically evolved to excel at emotion (particularly sympathy), communication, and cooperation."
Pretty ridiculous to sit there and say that I am saying "only babies" when I specifically named three more things myself besides babies, don't you think? Not that those are the only three but it was three that I had specifically named myself right there in black and white. Do you even read?

"The truth of the matter is that there are very few things unrelated to rearing children where the premium on sympathy, communication or cooperation is so high that women will be able to out perform men on net."
See where it says "very few things"? That is me explicitly saying there are other things women are better at besides babies/rearing children.

"To be clear this is not to say that men can't excel at rearing children, or that women can’t excel at most other things. They can. It's just that because of our relative strengths, the best, as well as best on average, at rearing children will almost always be women, and the best, as well as best on average, at most other things will almost always be men."
See where is says "most other things"? That means there are other things besides babies where women are better. See where it says "almost always"? That is me saying that women are better at some of the non-baby things.

Over and over and over I explicitly said there were other things aside from babies that women were better at. I had even named some of them for goodness sake. Yet for some reason here we are with you telling me I said something different. We all brain fart or are lazier than we should have been and fail to comprehend something from time to time. It happens, and normally it is no big deal. But when it is on something this glaringly obvious, it was either done intentionally, or as a result of way more than a normal amount of reading laziness and we should be taken to task for it, particularly when it has already been pointed out to you and you were still doing it anyway.

Everything you cited supports your thesis that women = babies and men = the rest of it. All you did here is describe what you think it means to be good at babies (emotion etc.) and you a few times wrote “almost everything” rather than “absolutely everything”.

So your argument is that men are better at 99.9995% of all the billions of things people do, and I horribly mischaracterized you as claiming that men are better at 99.9999%

 

[ShortBusRuss]

How many women play chess compared to men? There are many variables that go into why women as a group have a lower average than men as a group in some activities where physical strength isn't a factor. One major one is the participation rates. If a woman were to be the best chess player in the world you would need to understand it in two contexts. One what is the chance that ANY given chess player will make it to the very top of the ratings? Extremely small when you look at all chess players.

And the second context is when pulling from a subgroup what is the chance that any player from that group will reach the top rating? Even smaller.

You could pick any subgroup, blonde haired people, one armed players, russians, africans etc.... and then look at the factors that surround their chess development and come up with the odds that anyone from that subgroup would end up as the best chess player in the world.

Russians....well they have a pretty damn robust chess culture so the likelihood that any given Russian player becomes the best player in the world is certainly way higher than any given African.

And the same goes for pool.

Siming Chen's rating and the ratings of other top women players shows how far they have come in a male-dominated sport not how far they can go.

All your points have already been addressed in this thread. In summary, even IF we allow the copout of "participation rate" as a reason why women underperform men in virtually every competitive endeavour that does not require muscles, in the end, the participation rate itself likely indicates a genetic difference between men and women,

As in, women are genetically predisposed against aggression and competition, putting them as a group at an inherent disadvantage against men. After all.. Just TRY to prevent young men/boys from competing against each other.

Buuuuuuutttt.. given you blocked me on Facebook, I expect that you will similarly refuse to consider these ideas that differ from your own, because that's just the type of guy you are, John...

Short Bus Russ

 

[iusedtoberich]

Well now that we've debated the endless nature vs nurture debate for the thousandth time on here....

Does anyone know Simings schedule, and if she will be playing any other men soon. The match with Donny was amazing. If they play again, I'd still bet on Donny... The match with Efren was so fun to watch as well.

Is she playing in Pat's international 9 ball event this fall? Is she playing in Matchroom's US Open next spring? Is she playing in DCC main events? Or, DCC 10 ball challenge!? Does Roy have her set up with any exhibition/gambling matches? etc, etc.

I see a great opportunity for Siming to help popularize the entire pool industry, with the battle of the sexes, if its promoted well.

 

[pt109]

How many women play chess compared to men? There are many variables that go into why women as a group have a lower average than men as a group in some activities where physical strength isn't a factor. One major one is the participation rates. If a woman were to be the best chess player in the world you would need to understand it in two contexts. One what is the chance that ANY given chess player will make it to the very top of the ratings? Extremely small when you look at all chess players.

And the second context is when pulling from a subgroup what is the chance that any player from that group will reach the top rating? Even smaller.

You could pick any subgroup, blonde haired people, one armed players, russians, africans etc.... and then look at the factors that surround their chess development and come up with the odds that anyone from that subgroup would end up as the best chess player in the world.

Russians....well they have a pretty damn robust chess culture so the likelihood that any given Russian player becomes the best player in the world is certainly way higher than any given African.

And the same goes for pool.

Siming Chen's rating and the ratings of other top women players shows how far they have come in a male-dominated sport not how far they can go.

I know some very smart women...and I value their advice...but they appreciate my contributions
also....we see things from different angles and use those views to our mutual advantage.
Vive la difference!

I supported open competition since I was a kid...I was totally against Hopkins decision
to make it not possible for Balukas to play in the PBA.
....I have told talented women to NOT try to emulate male competitors....
...play from your own strengths.
We can be different but equal.

Vive la difference

 

[iusedtoberich]

Maybe I'm being selfish, but I feel like the whole pool community is wasting the biggest opportunity to raise the game's popularity we've had in years, if we don't pit Siming vs all the men players.

We need her in all the men's tournaments. In Pat's make it happen series. In Darrens WPS. At the US Open. At Pat's international Open. And to advertise all of these events with modern social media. Fargorate can be part of the social media blitz.

Siming IS THE DRAW to make pool more popular. She might be the new Efren, in fan appeal. If she is as good as Fargo says she is, every banger male pool player will line up for miles to watch her attempt to beat the male pro's. We have a great opportunity here!

 

[pt109]

Maybe I'm being selfish, but I feel like the whole pool community is wasting the biggest opportunity to raise the game's popularity we've had in years, if we don't pit Siming vs all the men players.

We need her in all the men's tournaments. In Pat's make it happen series. In Darrens WPS. At the US Open. At Pat's international Open. And to advertise all of these events with modern social media. Fargorate can be part of the social media blitz.

Siming IS THE DRAW to make pool more popular. She might be the new Efren, in fan appeal. If she is as good as Fargo says she is, every banger male pool player will line up for miles to watch her attempt to beat the male pro's. We have a great opportunity here!

I like this post.....a lot.

 

[pt109]

So far, I’m enjoying this thread immensely....this is why I read AZ.
I don’t agree with everybody completely....and I don’t disagree completely either.

And let’s give Jay Helfert some kudos here....
...he predicted this Siming phenomena years ago.

 

[9andout]

Maybe I'm being selfish, but I feel like the whole pool community is wasting the biggest opportunity to raise the game's popularity we've had in years, if we don't pit Siming vs all the men players.

We need her in all the men's tournaments. In Pat's make it happen series. In Darrens WPS. At the US Open. At Pat's international Open. And to advertise all of these events with modern social media. Fargorate can be part of the social media blitz.

Siming IS THE DRAW to make pool more popular. She might be the new Efren, in fan appeal. If she is as good as Fargo says she is, every banger male pool player will line up for miles to watch her attempt to beat the male pro's. We have a great opportunity here!

You sir are on point.

 

[one stroke]

Maybe I'm being selfish, but I feel like the whole pool community is wasting the biggest opportunity to raise the game's popularity we've had in years, if we don't pit Siming vs all the men players.

We need her in all the men's tournaments. In Pat's make it happen series. In Darrens WPS. At the US Open. At Pat's international Open. And to advertise all of these events with modern social media. Fargorate can be part of the social media blitz.

Siming IS THE DRAW to make pool more popular. She might be the new Efren, in fan appeal. If she is as good as Fargo says she is, every banger male pool player will line up for miles to watch her attempt to beat the male pro's. We have a great opportunity here!

Actually no they won't line up to see her that's already been proven it's got a nitch and some interest among the pool world but almost zero interest past that ,,
It's shocking to me how much some people over value pool as a spectators sport ,,

1