Why aren't women as good as men!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Number1
  • Start date Start date

Why aren't women as good as men!

  • They don't have mental strength!

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • They don't have the physical strength

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Their jugs get in the way!

    Votes: 4 23.5%

  • To busy ironing?

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Total voters
    17
fxskater said:
Noone will ever convince me that there is a woman on this planet that could beat Reyes, Strickland, Archer or any of the other great champs in a race to 17. It wouldn't happen. I think a few of them could win in a race to 9 but noce you go past there i fon't think the ladies stand a chance. BTW, I'm not really chauvanistic (?) i just know what i have observed. I honestly hope that one day the women can compete with the men, but i feel that day will never come.]
Click to expand...

Race to 17. Wouldnt that be about a two hour match? If a person wants to do that long of a match, they need to get in better physical condition, ie better stamina, that is all. Have not played pool for long but when I can swim for two hours, will let you know. That imo is more demanding than pool. Or can I do karate for two hours? The answer is yes.

As far as pool goes, right now my husband can stay at that table for mor hours than I can. I , quite obviously, need work on stamina. This is a minor aspect. As more women want to be as good as men, this is just one example as one of the things they must work to overcome.
 
Last edited:
Re: the women ...

Snapshot9 said:
Watched a match between Helena and Karen on ESPN tonight. I am pretty sure I could beat either one of them. Neither was very good at banking, and only about a 7 for shooting safeties, which they elected to shoot rather than a difficult shot. If they had to break from the front instead of always using a side break, they wouldn't be in the ballpark, and the side breaking wasn't that great.
By the way, Helena won the match, and I wish the announcer would quit calling her Tornfeldt, it's Thornfeldt... sheesh, where do they find these novice announcers...
Click to expand...

I am a relatively new player in the sport and can sick two on the break. I have seen jeanette do 3-4. I think that when we talk about women vs men, we have to realize a few things.

Most women pros are happy with the wpba.

If a woman wants to beat men, they will have to step up to the plate and compete with the men.

I think that saying women can be as good as men is a thing of what they could do, providing the killer instinct, drive and willinglyness to get into good physical shape to minimize whatever physical advantages that men currently have.

When comparing what women are currently doing to what they 'could' do, if motivated, those are two different things.

watched the espn thing too and was not impressed, either. I felt that both were off their best game.

Laura
 
Re: the women ...

Snapshot9 said:
Watched a match between Helena and Karen on ESPN tonight. I am pretty sure I could beat either one of them. Neither was very good at banking, and only about a 7 for shooting safeties, which they elected to shoot rather than a difficult shot. If they had to break from the front instead of always using a side break, they wouldn't be in the ballpark, and the side breaking wasn't that great.
By the way, Helena won the match, and I wish the announcer would quit calling her Tornfeldt, it's Thornfeldt... sheesh, where do they find these novice announcers...
Click to expand...

Snapshot,

Have you ever played on TV before? Ever have a camera looking back at you with who knows how many people watching you on TV? You see, I've often felt the same way you do while watching them play from the comfort of my family room and then one day I played Morro Paez in a tournament match and every time I got down to shoot, there were about 50 pairs of eyes looking at me while I was shooting. I wasn't used to that and it really threw my game off. Having experienced that, I still can't imagine how difficult it must be like to play on TV. Your answer to that will probably be that they've been on TV before and should be used to it by now. I don't think either of us can say that until we've been there. Maybe you have, and if you have, I defer to your experience and wisdom then.
 

A race to 17 probably would not take two hours with players of this caliber and it is already used in the finals of the World Pool Championships in Cardiff as well as other major tournaments. It is not completely physical either as it is the last set in a long, draining competition which I feel is very mentally taxing as well.
A lot of other strictly physical competitions you can allow your mind to wander now and then but in a finals race like this you need to stay mentally focused even when you are not at the table which I believe to be more demanding than just running or swimming for two hours. Just my opinion which I am sure will receive criticism but until you are in a money match in a long race it is hard to just sit back on the sidelines and try to compare and critique.
 
Races to (?) originated for tournaments only. Especally TV. DD, you're not wrong. The problem with races, even to 17, is for example. You and I are playing a race to 17 for $100. I beat you 17 to 16 the first set. The second set you beat me 17 to 0. We have just broken even on the money and yet you have won 16 more games than I have. You should not be happy with this result. Races are fine for tournaments, even necessary. But anyone wagering their own money should consider playing (?) games ahead. This format shows more truely the better player.
 
hemicudas said:
Races to (?) originated for tournaments only. Especally TV. DD, you're not wrong. The problem with races, even to 17, is for example. You and I are playing a race to 17 for $100. I beat you 17 to 16 the first set. The second set you beat me 17 to 0. We have just broken even on the money and yet you have won 16 more games than I have. You should not be happy with this result. Races are fine for tournaments, even necessary. But anyone wagering their own money should consider playing (?) games ahead. This format shows more truely the better player.
Click to expand...


Agreed and I probably should have clarified that this is what I meant. I just threw it together because it seems people like to compare apples with oranges. I personally would not play a long set like that for short money but I do think that in a World Championship arena it makes for great pool and certainly weeds out the faint of heart.

Dave


 
Re: the women ...

Snapshot9 said:
Watched a match between Helena and Karen on ESPN tonight. I am pretty sure I could beat either one of them. Neither was very good at banking, and only about a 7 for shooting safeties, which they elected to shoot rather than a difficult shot. If they had to break from the front instead of always using a side break, they wouldn't be in the ballpark, and the side breaking wasn't that great.
Click to expand...

Are you better than Jim Rempe? Cause he lost to Karen TWICE for the cash....

Snapshot9 said:
By the way, Helena won the match, and I wish the announcer would quit calling her Tornfeldt, it's Thornfeldt... sheesh, where do they find these novice announcers...
Click to expand...

Agreed, Mitch Laurance is a crappy announcer, but his pronunciation of Thornfeldt is correct. Believe it or don't, but there are other countries outside the US, and they use different pronunciations than we do....
 
Actually Mitch isn't the only announcer who says Tornfeldt, Steve Tipton also pronounces it like that! If you have ever been to a WPBA event you would know what I am saying.
 
Re: Re: the women ...

DoomCue said:
Are you better than Jim Rempe? Cause he lost to Karen TWICE for the cash
Click to expand...

I know he lost to her in a tournament in the finals, but when did they play for the cash?
 
Corr beat Rempe twice in the finals of a Joss event, 9-5 both times. Winner got $1700. That's the cash I was talking about. Here is the link to the story.
 
Karen beat a true champion In King James. Now, all she has to do is beat this local yokel named Reed Pierce to win, NOT $1,700 BUT $10,000+ and YOU can have 1/2 of it. My e-mail isn't ringing off the hook so you FANies must not have much gamble or really don't believe what you are saying. All you Karen lovers pool your money. One guy doesn't have to stake it all. Of course she can throw some of her own cash in with you guys too if she would like and when you win down here we shake your hand and say "Tellum where ya got it." This is no joke. She can win the car above if she can win........$Bill..........PS, Where did that high rollin Green Guy go on this one? Thought he might have some heart.
 
Last edited:
Snapshot9 said:
Sorry, but I have never seen a woman player that could hand me my hat ...

The best women players are only
65-85% strength of the best men players. Allison, Karen, and Jeanette, and Jean Balukas being the 85% ones.
In fact, I have never seen a woman that I would say is over a 7 speed in the amateur rankings, and that includes the Canadian Twins that won international championships in Vegas. When women get that good, they will start gambling like men do, and I mean for more than
$5. They just don't have the grit and the gamble to get there, no offense meant
ladies, just a fact ... and I have played
40 years in many places.
Click to expand...

Jean Balukas was definitely head and shoulders above the womens' field when she played years ago. She was a terrific pressure player.

Karen is awesome. I got the chance to watch a tape of her in action and she's very, very strong.
PoolMouse
 
Last edited:
I have read a majority of the posts on this thread and have a few inputs...
1) What does the strength of the female players compared to the strength of the male players have to do with who is better?
If you can run a rack, play good defense, offense, CB position...what's going to stop you from beating a female or a male?
2) Why doesn't someone have the top 16 men and the top 16 women play in a tournament, make sure a male plays a female in the first round, just to make the field even?

I think a pool player is a pool player, gender makes no difference. Yes, the male may break harder, but that doesn't mean they can control the CB at the same time. Male or female, a pool player is a pool player. I don't see how you can say the males are a much better player!

JMO,
Zim
 
Matches

Zim ... Have you watched any pro matches on ESPN? The women's offense
and defense are not as good. They miss
safeties, almost will never bank a baLL, especially long rail bank, and don't have the finesse with the cueball that the men players do. Ever see a women pro use inside english cutting a ball in and taking the cue ball 3 rails for shape?
 
Scott, if the women played as well as the men my door bell would be ringing right now...."Ding Dong"....It's got to be Avon cause it sure ain't no lady player...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top