Russ, you could be right, but until the differences are still apparent when approximately equal numbers of men/women compete at something, be it pool or chess, I will continue to believe that it's just purely a numbers game.
My point is that the difference in participation rates is not small. If it were close, say within 20%, then I might be more inclined to agree with you but until then I will continue to believe that the large pool of players that men draw from compared to the relatively small pool that women draw from is reason they play stronger on average than women do.
I don't think you got the point I was trying to make. The NUMBERS are vastly different between female and male competitors BECAUSE of the genetic difference in aggression and competitive urge. There will never be equal numbers of men and women competing in anything, because women as a group do not have the genetic programming to want to compete in the first place.There is a "large pool of men to draw from", because men are always contesting themselves against one another in sporting competition, because they are biologically driven to do so. Women compete in other areas. The ability to attract males, generally... Because this is their role in the reproductive process. To be the most attractive/submissive to the strongest, most aggressive male available.
There are not fewer women playing pool because of "cultural" factors, of being looked down on because one is a female playing pool. Men play pool first and foremost because they want to defeat other pool players. The "beauty" of the game is certainly a factor, but the "beauty" of the game is not what drives a player of either sex to get good enough to run a 5 pack.
Players of either sex get to that point because they want to shoot someone's liver in. And the simple pure fact is that as a population, women don't WANT to compete. What they WANT to do is have a family, care for that family, and reduce conflict in that family. So as a "population", women are more interested in reducing conflict, than participating in it.
I look at it this way... Males and females are genetically different, specifically when it comes to whatever brain/hormone factor induces aggression/competition. From a biological/evolutionary viewpoint, the only time a female generally aggresses is when her offspring or to a lesser extent, herself is attacked. Males are biologically programmed to aggress simply when they perceive another male has come into their "territory".
Funny story about that.. When I was 22/23, I actually considered the tournaments I played in in Tacoma/WA area to be my "territory", and felt a burning desire to show up and defeat any lesser players. This was a VERY real thing in my mind. Sounds a lot like a bull moose going nuts if another male comes anywhere near, doesn't it?
I watch a TON of nature documentaries, and to me, it is more than a coincidence that males of all mammal species are extremely aggressive towards one another, and females are submissive to the male that wins out. It may seem sexist to say so, but I submit that the human species is no different. Females are not built genetically to compete, and whatever outliers amongst their population that ARE more prone to compete, will skew more towards male traits. More masculine physical features, more aggressive personalities outside of competition, etc.
Not that we know of any female pool players like that, eh? Lol.
But, back to your point about participation pools. If we COULD somehow equalize the number of men and women competing at a sport/game that does not require muscles, I submit that while the top 1% of each sex would have approximately equal physical skills (debatable, due to male spatial and tracking abilities being shaped by millions of generations of evolution, aimed at the need to catch and kill prey, and avoid being prey), that the top 1% WOULD NOT be equal in competitive urge and aggression. We've both seen people lose matches simply due to the fact that they "couldn't pull the trigger" when they were backed up against the wall.
And back to the chess thing... I play chess and have actually studied it a bit, and one thing a lot of people are not aware of is that Master level players are all pretty much born with the brain wiring that makes pattern recognition/retention MUCH easier for them than the rest of the population. To a male mammal, pattern recognition is a valuable trait to have to identify the presence/absence of predator/prey, and to identify behavioral patterns in the same predator/prey. So it may very well be that this extreme pattern recognition is much more evolved in the male population than in the female, because it really isn't needed if you are a female sitting at home caring for the cubs.
In the end, it could very well be that while you have female outliers, that the top 1% of the males will always be better than the top 1% of the females, PHYSICALLY, because every skill in every sport or game has a physical basis, and most are adapted from hunting/being hunted, which gives the advantage in almost every single one of these cases to males. This is without even putting in the aggression/competitive urge factor.
