Super Touchy Subject Men vs.Women in Pool

Willowbrook Wolfy said:
Last I checked avg pro male break was 20mph+. I’d like to see you break 20mph as most my guy friends cant. They avg 16-18 at 150+ lbs. I just looked it up. According to Google. Avg male pro break is 4 mph higher than avg pro female. That’s a big gap. That means males are breaking 20% harder than females. That could in turn very well be the reason for the skill difference between men and women.
Click to expand...

Willowbrook Wolfy said:
Last I checked avg pro male break was 20mph+. I’d like to see you break 20mph as most my guy friends cant. They avg 16-18 at 150+ lbs. I just looked it up. According to Google. Avg male pro break is 4 mph higher than avg pro female. That’s a big gap. That means males are breaking 20% harder than females. That could in turn very well be the reason for the skill difference between men and women.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Men break with more speed and power, but if you have good control and accuracy it is unnecessary to use all that force. I do wish I had SVB break, but I have a consistent break (a good break) and pocket balls.
 
Nick B said:
Food for thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#:~:text=Research in gender differences[,no such differences."[12]

Research in gender differences​

Male chess players greatly outnumber female chess players at all age levels and in the vast majority of tournaments, often by a factor of ten or higher. Analysis of rating statistics of German players in an article from 2009 by Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod, and Fernand Gobet[11] indicated that although the highest-rated men were stronger than the highest-rated women, the difference (usually more than 200 rating points) was largely accounted for by the relatively smaller pool of women players (only one-sixteenth of rated German players were women). In 2020, psychologist and neuroscientist Wei Ji Ma summarized the state of research on women in chess as "there is currently zero evidence for biological differences in chess ability between the genders" but added "that does not mean that there are certainly no such differences."
Click to expand...
I admit I haven't read the study but I'd be very surprised if it was rigorous in its attempts at finding biological differences. It's lazy of me not to read it, but it's also lazy to assume there aren't differences just because they don't directly show up in a pool of chess players. We know there are biological differences between the sexes. One huge thing psychologists know is men tend to be more interested in things and women tend to be more interested in people. Just that one thing alone, can explain the disparity between participation rates between the sexes in both chess and pool. Where does this preference come from? It's certainly not all societal at this point. Is it biological? Probably at least to some degree.

I suspect the level of OSD like obsession it takes to become great at either game is at least partially driven by our internal wiring. Nothing I've seen in my life -- while coaching boys and girls, or anything I've heard or read has come close to convincing me otherwise. Men and women are different.

***Edit***
I see it wasn't a study, but a Slate article that was quoted. In the article, she just dismisses any evidence that points in the direction of inherent differences, while hoping it all boils down to participation rates.
 
Last edited:
MattPoland said:
It is my belief that if an equal number of men and women participated in pool, encouragement from family/friends/society was equal, training/access was equal, etc. I do think the results would be closer to 50/50. I do accept that there might be some evolutionary factors that emerged in the brain that make men more likely to engage in OCD-like activities that would make it not 50/50. But the FargoRate spread from the top men and top women would not be 100 points. It’d be more like 20 points. IMO
Click to expand...
That's reasonable. I think the difference would be a little higher. The thing is, even if we lived in a completely egalitarian society, I don't think pool would ever get close to 50/50 participation rates. The game just doesn't appear to be as interesting to women. Why? Maybe it's the solitary nature it takes on when really working towards greatness. Of course that appeals to some women but it's a way smaller subset then it is for men. That may be driven in part by evolutionary factors as you mentioned. For millenia, women haven't had the luxury of solitude. Instead they've had to care for the young and constantly be vigilant about their own safety. These things get baked into them.
 
muskyed said:
I could be wrong, but in some ways, I feel it's the killer instinct that men have in sports. While men may be friends with who they are competing against they will also want to totally dominate them for the win.
You will virtually never see this with women pool players. In local team leagues that we play in with a lot of women players, in between their games the women will be more interested in walking around to chitchat with their women friends. Women just appear to be more social, and that is just the way it is. I even notice this when watching the WPBA when it comes to town near me. They are all so close and of course they want to win, but not to the intensity that the men players seem to.
Click to expand...
That's a valid point.
 
sjm said:
i doubt Tommy Kennedy weighed more than 105 when he won the 1991 US Open 9ball. He had a powerful break. You don’t have to be big to break the balls hard. Both Sarah Rousey and Tiffany Nelson hit 29 mph on the radar gun when they played on the WPBA.
Click to expand...
Efficient stroke mechanics and wrist release / flexion on the follow through are all that is necessary for a 25+ mph break. Nothing to do with fast twitch muscles, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Something needs to deliver the perfect wrist. I believe that would the triceps and biceps which are fast twitch. Everything needs to be concerted. I disagree that they do in fact have something to do with the breaking procedure. I guess were all entitled to an opinion. Have a great day.
 
This is where the bullshit stops

IMG_0767.png
 
pt109 said:
This is where the bullshit stops

View attachment 743628
Click to expand...
That's my fear.

Is a 700 female the same as a 700 male?
Their performance may be the same. Is the road they took to get to 700 the same? A 700 female is a pro. A 700 male is not. Do we care? Do we eliminate women's professional events and tell them to play in 700 and below capped tourneys? Is their reward for reaching the pinnacle of women's pool -- playing in regional Fargo capped events? Or should they get the recognition and prestige they've earned by getting to continue to play in women's events?

These questions will be answered in the coming years.
 
BasementDweller said:
That's my fear.

Is a 700 female the same as a 700 male?
Their performance may be the same. Is the road they took to get to 700 the same? A 700 female is a pro. A 700 male is not. Do we care? Do we eliminate women's professional events and tell them to play in 700 and below capped tourneys? Is their reward for reaching the pinnacle of women's pool -- playing in regional Fargo capped events? Or should they get the recognition and prestige they've earned by getting to continue to play in women's events?

These questions will be answered in the coming years.
Click to expand...
Chen Siming was a 779 before Covid…..Donny Mills was a 753….he complained that Fargo had to be wrong.
A match was arranged in Virginia….Siming beat Mills two races to 25.
Does that stop the BS somewhat?
 
trob said:
Personally I think it’s the talent pool . In other words you separate schools in sports based on size because you assume the bigger schools will have more talent because of kids to choose from . Maybe it’s the same thing with women in pool? Just a lot less women trying to be pro’s and playing in general. That seems to increasing all the time so maybe at some point they will catch up. I’m not sure what else it could be. with today‘s equipment you can have a great break without smashing it as hard as you can so I’m not sure what is holding it back.
Click to expand...
Here's what's holding them back mentally IMO. Adult males typically have between 265 and 923 nanograms per deciliter of testosterone (ng/dL) in their blood, while adult females have far less. Typical levels vary depending on age, sex, and health. Generally, males have much higher levels of testosterone in their bodies than females.
 
pt109 said:
Chen Siming was a 779 before Covid…..Donny Mills was a 753….he complained that Fargo had to be wrong.
A match was arranged in Virginia….Siming beat Mills two races to 25.
Does that stop the BS somewhat?
Click to expand...
I remember the match. I'm not sure what BS you're referring to.
mikepage said:
lol...

Ina Kaplan, 692 just posted a recorded run of 146 balls.
I'm impressed.
The 700-woman-not-same-as-700-man crowd must be REALLY impressed.

Click to expand...
Very disingenuous. Siming and Kaplan should both be celebrated.

Are you in favor of getting rid of women's pool? If not, why not.
 
ChrisinNC said:
Efficient stroke mechanics and wrist release / flexion on the follow through are all that is necessary for a 25+ mph break. Nothing to do with fast twitch muscles, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

alison fisher has decent mechanics, good timing, wouldn't you say? maybe better than some big breaking men even? her break is good, but it's not explosive..
 
Men in engineering school are not capable of creative ideas. That is why Emily solved what the men could not.

Why do men always rush playing the pro scene? Selling time and food is good business too.

Women historically were not allowed to assemble and train in large numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top