Why can't women play as good as men?

[onepocketchump]

Why don't you back Kelly Fisher in a trip to DCC next year. Offer the non-pro MEN some EVEN action with a GIRL and see how many takers you get.
Then we'll see how much $ you make.

Believe me - if Kelly wanted to and I had the time and the money I'd take her there and STONE COLD rob some of the players who show up at the DCC. I am sure I could some GREAT odds with her. And I say this having been there and watching some of the ridiculous ways the boys match up. I am sure we'd make some great money deflating some egos.

I can see the whining now though.

You are more than welcome to bring anyone you want to Charlotte though and we can make arrangements to make a game. I make games based on strength though not on my feelings. So if you want to bring a name player then be prepared for me to get the line and make the right game. If we win we'll always adjust if it's out of line and expect the same from you.

We played one match where the other guy's break just killed Kelly. He was playing six ball and running out and getting three games to one in the wins. We offered to play again if it was alternate break or even bet more if he gave up the breaks - NO TAKERS. So we don't bet with people that won't adjust a little if adjustment is warranted.

Kelly's schedule is so hectic though that she doesn't have time to gamble really. She could of course but she prefers to spend time between tournaments being domestic and working on her game at her pace. I can't blame her and don't push her to play money games.

When the DCC happens Kelly is usually in England visiting her family because this is the most time she has to do that.

If you have someone you want to play Kelly then email me at jb@jbideas.com and we can discuss it.

John

 

[onepocketchump]

Why don't you back Kelly Fisher in a trip to DCC next year. Offer the non-pro MEN some EVEN action with a GIRL and see how many takers you get.
Then we'll see how much $ you make.

There are a lot of "non-pro" men who can get even action with Kelly RIGHT NOW nad who want no part of her. Why don't you name some of the "non-pros" you have in mind and I will tell you which ones can played even.

John

 

[onepocketchump]

Actually while we're on the subject - anyone know how the ladies play on the pro-cuts? I've actually had discussions about women's pool with friends and what it always comes back to is that the tv table pockets are too huge to clock them accurately

The women are playing on tight 4.5inch pockets this year. Down from 4.75" Kelly has one at home that is cut the same as the IPT and it's scary tight. I think the tighter pockets will make the ladies' games go up.

Even Kelly commented on how sloppy her play had become on easy pockets.

John

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Lee also started learning the game from Gene in her late teens. Arguably this is a disadvantage as there have been very, very few people who picked up the game at that stage in life who went on to become great. Nagy is an example as well as Lee who did and does continue to dominate in her league and always has respectable showings against the men.

If I am not mistaken I believe Lee finished rather high in at least one of the divisions of the Derby City classic and has beaten a lot of really good players in those competitions.

Pretty good for someone who started so late in life. What if Jeanette had started at six like Mosconi and had the instruction and experience she did? One can only speculate.

John

There are ALOT of great players who started in their mid-late teens and became greats.

 

[jay helfert]

The one that assumes we don't yet know everything about everything. To add to it the one that says we are still evolving and what was true about out physiology and psyches 1000 years ago is not true now. I think those are pretty safe things to assume. I don't assume that men are automatically better than women just because someone has theorized that men were providers and women were gatherers. I am pretty sure that there have been situations where most of the men in a village have been eliminated through war and the women became the hunters and providers. Conversely, men can be the nurturers when they must fill that role.

I subscribe to the assumption that human beings are adaptable and that they can and do step up to fill whatever roles are required of them.

I also subscribe to the assumption that most humans are incredibly short-sighted and will argue ad infinitum using just the enviroment that they are used to for basis. It doesn't matter what the topic is, it seems to me that the argument from the shortsighted is of the attitude that it is so because it always has been so and will always remain so. I don't subscribe to that assumption.

John

Well said!

 

[jay helfert]

Monica Webb can get played all day every day by Kelly. I know Monica can dab it but I'll bet everything I have down to the last tattered copy of "Rags to Rifleman" that Kelly will torture her. How about ten ahead for ten large?

John

If they're playing One Pocket I'll take Ms. M. In fact, if they played one set of each (say Race to Nine 9-Ball, and Race To Four One Pocket) I'd still take her.
9-Ball only and Kelly becomes the favorite.

Now if you want an interesting match-up, where someone will definitely come out on top, have then play one set each of 9-Ball, Eight Ball and One Pocket. Now, you're gambling.

 

[jay helfert]

Why not a race to 50 if they're so closely matched? How about a '10 ahead' set?

5-1 is extreme anyways. Would you take 3-2 against the same players (nine ball, not eight ball)?

I bet you won't, because despite the fact that they may post some wins in short races in tournaments, we all know that in a real match for money they are substantial underdogs against the top men.

No thanks. I'm only talking about a tournament match situation. If you would like, we can bet on each individual match Karen, Allison and Kelly play in the next IPT event. Pick any player you want, and give me 3-1 odds on the match. A lot better than 5-1.

I think they improved after this first event. That's why I'm lowering my odds. Same scenario if any of the above plus Jeanette or Jasmine play in the Derby City 9-Ball. In fact, I will take 3-1 on ANY match Jeanette plays in any division. And same for Vivian if she plays there.

Now you've got a lot of women to bet against and the odds aren't nearly so bad. This does not apply to gambling scenarios mainly because it would be very hard to match up a game for any of the above.

 

[enzo]

Dude, I think Sarah Rousey weighs more than Alex Pagulayan and Nick Varner combined and she's only like 100 punds soaking wet. The stronger argument holds no water in pool.

John

I'm very surprised to see you make these statements. Weight isn't correlated with strength. Men's muscles are physiologically different than womens, the fact that there is some lady that weights even 10 times more than Nick doesn't matter at all.

A world class male sprinter's legs have a higher capacity to move him faster. A professional male cyclist has a increased capacity to go longer and faster. In pool, men have the ability to strike a cueball with a more rapid motion and with more force (and to walk around the table for longer perioids of time etc etc).

I really don't see there being an argument here, if there is a physical element in a sport, women will most likely (cant think of one example where this isn't the case) be at a disadvantage. Just am baffeled somebody would really say "The stronger argument holds no water in pool." Just becasue its not football doesn't mean there is no physical element. It may be a much smaller element, but it is present nonetheless.

 

[Tommy Joe]

Nowhere in my posting did I say that someone else should be allowed to break for a woman. If indeed Efren were to break the rack open for a women as you suggest, there's no reason to think that a player like Jeanette Lee or Allison Fisher or Sarah Ellerby couldn't run out a wide-open table.

In another posting you stated that Jeanette Lee is a B-player, which is another indication that you really don't know what you're talking about.

No, I never said you said men should break for women. I was being facetious, and also trying to point out that if the break were equalized the superior player would still win. I'm saying the break is important, but what happens after the break is more important.

I don't see my comments as less worthy than yours. I used to play. I know the game. I have never seen Jeanette Lee play in person, but have seen her many times on tv in matches in which she was playing her best, and to me she looks like a lot of B players I used to know. Now maybe the definition of "B Player" has changed over the years, but when I was playing and hanging around, a B player was a good player who could not compete on a steady basis against A competition. I still say that Lee could not compete against the top A competition if she didn't have the female league to fall back on. I think you're the one being emotional, or at least every bit as emotional as me. Please try, give it an honest effort - try to imagine Lee and the other females Fisher and Corr regularly beat one - try to imagine them making it in an genderless league. You're telling me I know nothing, but I find it hard to believe after seeing Lee's game, that you really believe she plays on the level of the top men. She can't compete with Fisher and Corr, and you're comparing her to the top men. She's a B player.

Tommy Joe

 

[Tommy Joe]

Tommy, I for one, like the idea of letting women play against the men on the IPT. That is one of it's best features.

Whenever this topic comes up, things get emotional and foggy. Well, even though I think women don't play as well as men, I too am in favor of them playing against men in the IPT or anywhere else for that matter. In fact I'm so much for it that I'd like to see the women's leagues disbanded permanently. Athough I'm not sure the women would agree with my plea for absolute equality.

Tommy Joe

 

[Chris]

A world class male sprinter's legs have a higher capacity to move him faster. A professional male cyclist has a increased capacity to go longer and faster. In pool, men have the ability to strike a cueball with a more rapid motion and with more force (and to walk around the table for longer perioids of time etc etc).

There is no need to be in top physical condition to play world class pool. That need exists for sprinters and cyclists at the top levels. Pool is not an activity of physical exertion. It doesn't even count as exercise.

There is no reason that the physical differences affect the ability for women to compete with men. Pool is not physically demanding. When the number of female pool players matches the number of male pool players, you will find the number of top players will be pretty evenly divided between the sexes.

 

[onepocketchump]

Well, Karen Corr I guess would be the best example of a woman who regularly plays in a "genderless" league. She has won two Joss Tour events against world class fields and world class professionals. There are many, many pros and semi-pros who compete in almost every Joss Tour event who have not won any of them nor have they finisjed as consistently high as Karen usually does.

Allsion Fisher won the only SouthEast tour stop she ever played in. She played in ONE and won it against US Open Winner Tommy Kennedy. How many "B" players can get in the SouthEast tour or the Joss Tour and win one? Answer: NONE - NOT ONE - NOT EVER.

Having said that, let's define a B player. An A player is someone who plays really well locally. He wins his fair share of local tournaments and sometimes does well in regional events. A B player is someone who consistently finishes deep in the field in most local tournaments and occassionally snaps one off. Once in a while the B player goes deep in a regional but mostly they go 2-3 and out.

A AA player is a good shortstop who snaps off almost all the local tournaments he plays in, is a threat to make life real tough for anyone he plays in a regional and occassionally finishes real high in the regionals. Normally goes 2-3 and out in pro events.

A AAA player wins all local tournamanets without breakig a sweat. He is a threat to win any regional tournament and snaps many of them off. He is a consumate gambler who play for big money and is constantly in action. He ususally finishes mid-pack in pro events and occassionally real deep.

The Pro. A pro is the top of the heap - he is not an easy draw for ANYONE. The pro is liable to beat any other pro in a tournament match at any time. The pro occasionally falters to AAA players who are in dead punch but the pro's bad game is usually equivalent to the AAA player's best game.

For anyone to take a set off a pro it is a real accomplishment. Allison, Karen, Jeannette, and Kelly have all proven that they can. There is not a B player on earth in my opinion that is able to do that.

These women are definitely pro players within their league and they are definitely AAA in the men's league.

John

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

No, I never said you said men should break for women. I was being facetious, and also trying to point out that if the break were equalized the superior player would still win. I'm saying the break is important, but what happens after the break is more important.

I don't see my comments as less worthy than yours. I used to play. I know the game. I have never seen Jeanette Lee play in person, but have seen her many times on tv in matches in which she was playing her best, and to me she looks like a lot of B players I used to know. Now maybe the definition of "B Player" has changed over the years, but when I was playing and hanging around, a B player was a good player who could not compete on a steady basis against A competition. I still say that Lee could not compete against the top A competition if she didn't have the female league to fall back on. I think you're the one being emotional, or at least every bit as emotional as me. Please try, give it an honest effort - try to imagine Lee and the other females Fisher and Corr regularly beat one - try to imagine them making it in an genderless league. You're telling me I know nothing, but I find it hard to believe after seeing Lee's game, that you really believe she plays on the level of the top men. She can't compete with Fisher and Corr, and you're comparing her to the top men. She's a B player.

Tommy Joe

Tommy Joe: Given the nature of this medium, I can't tell when you're being facetious or showing other emotions unless you add an emoticon such as to indicate that.

Onepocketchump posted what appears to be a good definition of a A and B-players, as shown below:
Having said that, let's define a B player. An A player is someone who plays really well locally. He wins his fair share of local tournaments and sometimes does well in regional events. A B player is someone who consistently finishes deep in the field in most local tournaments and occassionally snaps one off. Once in a while the B player goes deep in a regional but mostly they go 2-3 and out.

I do agree that Jeanette Lee isn't nearly as good as Allison or Karen in 9-ball, and in fact, Jeanette only ranks #9 in the WPBA standings. However, it could well be that Straight Pool is her strongest game, not 9-ball which is the game that most professional women play for money.

 

[Tommy Joe]

Tommy, thank you for the apology. I wasn't seeking to win. I am seeking to have discussion without sexist commentary.

John

Of course you're not seeking to win. No one can win an argument like this. I don't know the exact definition of 'sexist', but the very nature of the question inspiring this thread (which deserves it's own newsgroup) - the very nature of the question is sexist, as are all the answers to some degree. I mean, we are talking about gender here, right?

I want to wrap this up. Unfortunately I'm at post #150 or thereabouts and still have two pages to go. If I don't read them all I have not done my job, which states that I must be fair and unbiased.

The general consensus so far seems to be that women are presently not as good as men - or don't field as many good players - and this is due mainly to the fact that there are less women than men playing the game.

One guy suggested, perhaps in fun, that if coordinating color patterns were to become a sport, women would dominate. Now let's hold on a minute! If it became a professional sport it wouldn' be long before men would seek it out and excel at it, I don't care what it is. That's because (IMO), it is the nature of men to compete, which is not to say this is exclusive to men, but men since the beginning of time as we know it have been the ones to go out and compete for the bread, and I don't believe that's going to change, ever - unless women stop having babies all of a sudden. Hey, come to think of it, that's a good sport right there - "Who can have the most babies?" hah hah hah

I believe your reason is valid, that women at present don't play as well as the men because there are less women competing. But there will always be less women than men competing, so they will never on the whole play as well as the men. That is my belief. Furthermore, contrary to what you may think, I don't think I care one way or the other (although maybe I do and won't admit it even to myself). But my main reason for entering this discussion is my admitted annoyance with women having their own league to fall back on when playing the top men doesn't pan out.

Of course everyone who's good at a game or sport want's to improve. I don't blame women for wanting to play men. Let them at it, I don't care. But lesser male players have nothing to fall back on other than crap jobs or hustling in bars and so forth. Anyway, that's my main reason for enterting this discussion, that it bugs me that women have their own league in a sport where strength is not a major determining factor. And I'm not ashamed to say it bugs me. Also, just because some guys posting into this thread have expressed the belief that women are not man's equal at sports is no reason to assume that those guys are narrow-minded or bigoted or behind the times. They may feel that way with good reason, even if it's not politically correct in this day and age. I happen to be a very liberal minded person, even if you consider my stance on this issue to reflect something else. I'd like to say will be my last post on this matter, but as I said, I haven't finished checking out all the posts yet, so I can't promise anything. But I'd like to. I swear to God I'd like to.

Tommy Joe

 

[Tommy Joe]

If I am not mistaken I believe Lee finished rather high in at least one of the divisions of the Derby City classic and has beaten a lot of really good players in those competitions.

Pretty good for someone who started so late in life. What if Jeanette had started at six like Mosconi and had the instruction and experience she did? One can only speculate.

John

I didn't begin playing until I was 18. I stopped at 29 when I had to get a real job, at which time I found out how painful it is to lose hard-earned money to poolroom vultures.

The age at which one begins has always intrigued me. I believe Nagy is a rarity, and I applaud him for it. But I firmly believe if I played every day I would beat Jeanette Lee regularly. That's my opinion and I won't argue about it.

You are comparing her to Nagy in that she started playing comparatively late. But that's where the comparison ends. As long as she competes and makes the bulk of her money playing female tournaments she can be compared only to the women.

Tommy Joe

 

[Tommy Joe]

I do agree that Jeanette Lee isn't nearly as good as Allison or Karen in 9-ball, and in fact, Jeanette only ranks #9 in the WPBA standings. However, it could well be that Straight Pool is her strongest game, not 9-ball which is the game that most professional women play for money.

Straight pool was my best game. A person who knows that game can make better shooters look silly. But (IMO), if Fisher and Corr spent enough time practicing straight pool (and enjoying it) - in time they'd beat Jeanette at that game too. But of course I have no way of knowing. Nor do I care. I can see just by the small variety of games played on tv that Fisher and Corr are superior to Lee, considerably.

Tommy Joe

 

[Cornerman]

There is no need to be in top physical condition to play world class pool. That need exists for sprinters and cyclists at the top levels. Pool is not an activity of physical exertion. It doesn't even count as exercise.

There is no reason that the physical differences affect the ability for women to compete with men. Pool is not physically demanding.

Physically demanding is a red herring. Nobody thinks that pool is physically demanding, so that argument is off the table. Pool is simply a game of coordination of certain muscle groups to propel a 19 oz, 58" rod. It's the ability and effort to coordinate the motion with acuracy, precision, and a feel of velocity.

That's that physicality of it. Forget about strength, speed, or endurance. It's simply coordination and effort. The one with the best coordination with the least effort will excel at a quicker rate. I think that's as pure as it gets.

Now, as I said before, if there was a good theory on some things that differ between a man and woman that lend to the above description of the physical action in pool, would anyone on your side of the fence bother to give it any attention?

I'd love it if everyone, rather than look at pool, look at two different physical actions that most human beings clearly have enough strength to do: Throwing a tennis ball 20 ft, and doing the hula hoop around the hips for a few seconds. It doesn't require strength to do either. It requires no endurance. Let men and women try it out... their natural body mechanics tell the tale.

Excellent theories have been around for decades on why men throw like men, and women throw like women. And, why the average man hula hoops like a man, and the average woman can actually do the hula hoop. As I said in an earlier post, the center of gravity plays a major role. If anyone wants to give these two some attention, they have to ask themselves if pool is similar to a throwing motion. I hear Scott Lee say it is, all the time.

Fred

 

[Snapshot9]

My take on this ...

First, I try not to be sexist, but facts are FACTS, and facts speak for themselves.

Women's Pool has come a long way, but still has a long way to go. Allison and Karen are superior players in women's Pool, but on a men's pro scale would rate somewhere around a 78%. You go down past the top 5 women players and the quality of their play drops significantly. They simply make too many MISTAKES on runouts that are not hard, shots that are too easy, can not bank very good (especially more than 1 rail, are not that good at kicking, and they are not very good at knowing their opponent and how to capitalize on their weaknesses.

I have never seen a woman player play for more than $200 a set EVER.
And first, it is extremely rare to see a woman player gamble at all, especially with men players.

I have taught kids (boys 7-12), women (21-46), and men to play, although I am not a certified instructor, and helped various players over time.

Historically with women players:
I played Dorothy Wise (Dotty) in Houston in very early 70a's, on a big table (which I rarely shoot on), and took $400 off her and she quit.

I have played other women professionals that I would rate no better than a low B player.

I played the best woman player in our area, at that time, who usually won almost every local and regional woman's tournament around, I torched her in 9 ball giving her the 7, and took $500 off her giving her 2 on the wire going to 7 in 8 ball.

I play the National BCA women's Champion, who lives here, and give her the 7 and the break playing 9 ball.

Women, IMO, take losing a money match harder than a normal man player does. Some show it, some don't. Often they internalize it, and it causes
an internal decrease in confidence that last longer than in men. I think that they feel they are being put back in place as a '2nd class citizen' status again. They do not get back up on the horse, and often just play women after that instead of a man again.

There are a couple areas where women pick up quicker than men, though it usually isn't the most important areas. Women are usually smaller physically which presents some unique difficulties in Pool, which I am aware of, and had to overcome myself since I am not a big person physically. Women, are not usually, as good as the average man is at mathematics or as fast in their head with it, and take longer to grasp and sort out the complex areas of Pool. Some women do, but it usually takes longer and a lot more work on their part before they get there.

Women, although enjoying the noteriety and respect from being considered a good player, as we all do, do not have the 'drive' on a long term basis, perhaps because of other areas of their life ON THE AVERAGE.

The level of their game has come up, but the only 3 that would give me cause for hesitation to play would be Allison or Karen or Kelly. There are exceptions to any sport, but the truth is, women can not compete on an completely equal basis with men, you wuld be hard pressed to find any
MAJOR SPORT where that could be true, but they are making strides and it will not happen overnight.

Men and women are different for a REASON, (Thank you God). and I enjoy the difference. I, also, believe the Bible states certain roles for men and women in life, and that may also, play upon the psychological implications.

 

[Tommy Joe]

The level of their game has come up, but the only 3 that would give me cause for hesitation to play would be Allison or Karen or Kelly. There are exceptions to any sport, but the truth is, women can not compete on an completely equal basis with men, you wuld be hard pressed to find any
MAJOR SPORT where that could be true, but they are making strides and it will not happen overnight.

Men and women are different for a REASON, (Thank you God). and I enjoy the difference. I, also, believe the Bible states certain roles for men and women in life, and that may also, play upon the psychological implications.

Looks like this discussion is winding down, and even though I'm a non-believer I too must say, "Thank God!"

I agree with much of what you say. I have no problem admitting that women have the capacity to be as good as men at certain things, maybe all things, except for those where strength is involved.

I don't see why a woman can't race a car as well as a man, as just one example. But the argument that women haven't been playing as long as men in pool doesn't make it with me. The current group is not the first to come along, and you proved it when you mentioned Dorothy Wise. I don't doubt for a minute that you beat her. I don't want to mention names, but I hung out at a poolroom frequented at that time by the #10 ranked female in the world. If it wasn't exactly #10, it was close. There were 5 guys in that room alone who could beat her, plus others who could play even with her. So I was not impressed. I agree, and have said, that so far Fisher and Corr are in a class of their own. I haven't seen Kelly play, maybe once on tv. But I've heard her name mentioned enough that I'll accept that she might be in that class too. But Lee and the others we've been seeing for years do not come close. It's good for them that they have their own league.

I agree with you that women don't take losing very well, which is not to say men enjoy it either. I think losing is a form of rejection, and no one likes rejection, although I believe men handle it better than women, except for the occasional murder/suicide nutcase we read about in the papers.

I'm not so sure regarding your comment about size. I don't think it matters, unless the person is so small they need a stepping-stool and a bridge for every shot. Some of the best men players are pretty small, and in fact even years ago I wondered if there might be such a thing as an ideal height for a pool players, as even then I noticed many of the best players were not extremely tall. But of course there are exceptions to everything. I wouldn't argue this point, though, only pointing it out as an observation.

I have only one last thing to say, a roundup based on all the posts I've seen. The newsgroup consensus seems to be that women don't play as well as men because there aren't as many women playing the game. I won't argue that. But, the point is, it's not going to change - there will always be more men than women playing pool and other sports, especially on a professional level. So, really, what difference does it make why? Yes, I believe this discussion has reached it's end. But you can bet it will pop up again, not just here, but all over the place. Thanks for your comments.

Tommy Joe

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Today, for the first time I watched the "King of the Hill" IPT match of two women players: Allison Fisher vs. Niels Fiejen, and Karen Corr vs. Johny Archer. Although Fisher and Corr won both matches, I noticed that both Fisher and Corr really do have weak 8-ball breaks, which has to be one of the weakest aspects of their game. Both Fisher and Corr may be great 9-ball players but without a stronger 8-ball break, they are limited to how far they can advance.