Some of the top female players do not lack testosterone ...or something.
Siming Chen
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Some of the top female players do not lack testosterone ...or something.
Thx for the info. Ko had a bad tournament and KC finished in the money. But based on these results with Karen C finishing in front of Ko. Does that mean that Karen would play Ko even for the money?
I don't think so.
Well yes, but why bring that up? Is there anyone in this thread--or anywhere else on the planet for that matter--who has claimed Karen plays even with Ko?
She is about 80-points below him, about the same as the gap between Danny Olson and Shane Van Boening
No he does not, and i would bet she beats him at least 50/100 if not more
Siming Chen vs John Schmidt, Siming is the favorite
You comment does not exactly support your notion that you look at things logically, except in so much as you clearly are right about the last statement.
I can't believe the difference between a man and woman isn't more obvious.
I really don't feel like writing out a long thing on my phone, so let me just point out that there are many many differences between men and women: cognition, temperament, interests throughout life, physical differences, and on and on. Tons of research indicates that there are biological underpinnings for these differences.
The whole "pool isn't a game of strength" is a sad and woefully under-considered viewpoint. Every single shot in pool requires strength. Drawing the ball the length of the table from 5 feet away for example requires strength. Some girls simply do not possess that level of strength, of do not possess the ability to concentrate that strength in a way necessary to accurately do this thing. If I have developed the stroke power to break at like 30mph, then when it comes time to hit a firm draw shot, that feels effortless to me, thus opening the door for far more accuracy. Having coached many people, and many girls, trust me...strength makes a BIG difference in this game, and most men do not appreciate just how much stronger they are than the average woman. Obviously there are exceptions. But they are exceptions, which are, um, exceptional. For any thinking person, the physical strength differences and its effect on the game should be more than clear.
Still, even if we foolishly choose to eliminate that component of the comparison, the differences in temperament are even greater than the differences in strength. Over millennia these differences in temperament, cognition, interests, etc. have been subject to social influence, but also are reflected in biological differences between men and women. I have never understood why men and women must be viewed as equal in everything. They are not, and that's fine. They are two very different types of beings. Different skill sets, different strengths and weaknesses, so to speak, and on average of course. Simply put, the ability to stand up under the pressure of competition, people watching, possibly an adversarial attitude of the opponent, essentially a "threat", is a HUGE part of being a competitive pool player. Men are biologically put together specifically for the purpose of excelling in these sorts of situations, and women are not. Exceptions? Sure, on both sides. But to overlook the vast amounts of research claiming exactly this is a mistake, and leads to such statements as "I see no reason why women can play pool as well as men". Let's see...chess has zero physical requirements right? And yet the top men are much much better than the top women. Why? Because it is competition. And men by their biology and usually upbringing are made for competition, whereas women seem built for the opposite. Also, the differences in cognition between men and women become obvious in this sort of game, which shares some elements with some pool games.
Why are differences bad?
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
I made my over arching points in my post #114 in this thread. I acknowledge in that post that I don't know anything about the Fargo ratings.
My theme is that women will likely never play on par with the men in pool. In my own experience in any room I've ever played in the top male was always better than the top female and that is true today.
Logic is out of fashion my friend.
Ahahahahahaha
From about 9 years ago:
The fundamental reason for having separate sporting events for young people, old people, and women (and other classifications in some sports) is that people in these classifications typically perform at an inferior level compared to adult males who are not yet seniors. If the young, the old, and females did not have their own events, these people would be unable to win much of anything in the sports world. They are in "protected" classes so they can compete with similar people.
But at the highest level in most sports, the events are, and should be, open to any human being capable of competing at that level.
In the amateur golf world, for example, the U.S. Golf Association sponsors these six events (and some others) -- one for junior females, one for juniors as a whole, one for senior women, one for seniors as a whole, one for women of any age, and one for human beings of any age or sex. This last event is the U.S. Amateur, open to anyone who qualifies. And if a senior woman was good enough, she could play in both of the senior events and both of the adult (but-not-yet-senior) events. In fact, if this same senior woman was good enough to qualify, she could also play in the U.S. Open (amateurs and pros).
In pool, we see the same sort of thing -- events for juniors, or women, or "Class B" players, or wheelchair players, etc. These groups need to be protected in this way, because most of their players would be completely uncompetitive in open events. But if people in these classes are good enough, they can also try to compete at the highest level in truly open events, which, of course, are currently dominated by adult males.
Perhaps someday women pool players won't need their own tour. But in the meantime, it's a real pleasure to see a few of them able to compete with the top men. And to argue that the top men should therefore be eligible to compete in women's events is just ludicrous.
You are truly living in a fantasy world.
Good post, Kerry. I've long thought that a lot of shots are closer to their physical limits for women than for men and, therefore, women will miss more of those shots. So the generally superior power or strength of men is a factor well beyond just the break.
The Wednesday night tourney I play in has a few pros in it. On occasion I beat them. Apparently that makes me a pro. One guy I'm pretty sure can give me the 7 out playing 10 ball and rob me. I've never won a race to 7 or more with him, but I have won races to 5. Point is, a decent player is going to beat some top players every so often, but remain the HUGE underdog nonetheless.
KMRUNOUT
Agreed playing in China on a snooker table.
Wow!! What a revelation!! I mean everyone here has been saying if you once beat a pro, you are a pro. Pool needs you!!
I don't know the answers, but you are essentially saying, "trust me, strength is a really big deal in pool." I don't at this point find that compelling. But I am willing to listen.
I think you should be careful, though, to avoid characterizing people who don't agree with that as either being blind to differences between men and women or thinking differences are somehow bad.
yeah ok:smile:
having said that, she is in fact totally awesome, and I wish her continued success
I agree. Or even a best of series races to 11
Mike,
Strength was just one component of the case I was making. Temperament and other factors I listed I think are even more a factor than strength, as illustrated by my chess example. If you don't find the strength angle compelling, I would encourage you to consider further the specific applications of strength in a wide variety of pool situations. I do not know if you have considered the concept that accuracy can go up a lot if most shots are *well* withing the limits of your strength. For many women, many shots fall closer to their strength limits.
And I most certainly believe that many many people are indeed blind to the differences between men and women. I think many many people are blind to MANY differences between many things. Most people, even highly intelligent people (who for some reason must not consider the issue much), are most likely not aware of most research out there. Discernment is a principle ingredient in intelligence, and by definition the average person is only of average intelligence, and as such will simply not recognize many distinctions that do in fact exist. Also, I do indeed believe that many people are operating out of some assumption (compulsion really) to somehow make men and women equal. To imply that a woman can't do what a man can do is somehow horrible bigotry to many. Like all things, there are exceptions. However, whether or not there are exceptions my statements hold, unless someone wishes to claim that the exceptions account for more than 50% of the sample.
The point is, I am either right or I'm not. If I am, which I obviously believe, then the people who disagree are wrong because of any combination of ignorance, faulty logic, or being "blind to the differences". To characterize those people some other way, when that is the way it is, would be disingenuous...almost exactly the way characterizing men and women as equal is disingenuous. That said, I also hold an open mind and am overjoyed to hear any counter arguments. I'm happy to be wrong if this is the case, but the research out there is on my side in this one.
Sorry if this sounds harsh...
KMRUNOUT