Why can't women play as good as men?

This is getting ridiculous. Onepocketchump, you seem like a cool guy but you keep barking about how great Kelly Fisher is and how she can beat any male pro etc.

I have a suggestion. Get in touch with the top Filipino players like Efren, Bustamante, Manalo, Orcullo, Lining, and Pagulayan (they are not hard to find). Talk to either them or their backers, to get one of them to give Kelly the 7-out for a large sum. I guarantee you will get action. If you don't want to back Kelly, then see if you can back Allison, Karen, or whoever else. I guarantee you will get action with the same spot. Make it a long race or an ahead set.

Maybe you can even arrange an 8-ball game instead of 9-ball. Being that you said Kelly beat the 8-ball ghost, and them knowing that Kelly didn't get past the first round in the NA Open, you might get a huge spot in 8-ball too.

If what you believe holds true, you might make alot of money. Be sure to toss me a jellybean for the idea if you win :)
 
my opinion

i think that the break on a 9 foot table may very for the women in 8 ball..but not 9 ball or straight pool...percentage wise alison fisher plays just as strong as the men in nine ball...but cant wack em like a man in 8 ball...check stats on aall of them though and she is as high as any man statistically
 
Tommy Joe said:
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
Click to expand...


Of course I am comparing her success to women. She started late, had good instuction, is an talented player and maintains a top ten ranking despite debilitating back pain. In the women's league she is still a force to be reckoned with and not considered an "easy" draw for any of the WPBA players.

I have no idea how good you are Tommy and it's not about that. If we continue to compare apples to apples where would you rate yourself among the male pros IF you practiced every day.

No offense but it doesn't take much to say that you feel you could beat a top ten woman IF you practiced every day. Why not? Because there are only a handful of women in the world who play world class as opposed to hundreds of men. Statisicly you are more likely to be a good enough player to compete on an equal level with women if you have spent any serious time playing and training because you have likely had the luxury of competing with much better players on average for a longer time than women have had.

I would bet though, and again no offense, that you could practice every day and still not beat Kelly Fisher. I say this because Kelly is a player who plays the game the way it is supposed to be played and she is still learning.

Now, I will agree that every woman player who is serious about her game has every opportunity these days to receive world class tutelage, to compete with strong players from local tournaments to (some) pro events and of course every gambler in the country has an open invitation to play any woman. What they don't have however is freedom from the social bias that society in general has against women. When a woman plays in a predominately male tournament it is hard for men to let go of the bias and just play. They have all kinds of excuses as to why they play poorly and these make it back to the women. Allison commented on this years ago in an interview. She said that in her snooker career there were no men that she beat that ever said she simply outplayed them.

I applaud Corey Harper for standing up and saying that Sarah Ellerby flat out beat him. Dennis Orcullo told Kelly Fisher that she is a VERY good player and that he did not have to win their set at the IPT.

I will maintain my stance that the only reason that women are not as good as men on average is purely numbers. Yesterday I played in a local tournament. There was one woman. I don't know her. I glanced over at her table once in a while out of habit. She appeared to be playing at least as well (or as bad) as most of the men in the tournament. She went two rounds on the winners side if I saw it right. This is one lone woman against 20 male players. What are the odds that she is going to be good enough to beat most of them consistently? Make the tournament full of 10 women and 10 men of about equal experience and talent and you will find the results to be quite different.

One last point. Kelly rarely ventures out to play when she is at home. One of the things she did though several times was to win the local handicap tournaments after being handicaped with the highest or next to highest handicaps. This, despite having to give up signifigant weight against runout players in short sets. I know for a fact that some of the semi-pros (AAA players on my chart) aren't able to do this consistently. Kelly snapped off something like five in a row. Say what you want about relative strength but to me this is a good indication of just how strong a player she is. It's not only about being able to gamble high, or break and run lots of racks. It's also about being able to simply bring the same great game to the table despite the handicap. Ilona Bernhardt, a top German player, once won a triple tough handicap weekly tournament in Germany three weeks in a row despite having started at the highest handicap and then having to spot all the other good players an extra game for each week she won. Things like these are the mark of a champion.

Kelly against a field of 100 top male players - very tough to beat them all. Kelly against any particular male player - at least 50/50 to win in my opinion. Maybe in reality it more like 40/60 simply due to experience but it won't be ong before Kelly gets the respect due her as a player and not as a "woman" player.

John
 
cuetechasaurus said:
This is getting ridiculous. Onepocketchump, you seem like a cool guy but you keep barking about how great Kelly Fisher is and how she can beat any male pro etc.

I have a suggestion. Get in touch with the top Filipino players like Efren, Bustamante, Manalo, Orcullo, Lining, and Pagulayan (they are not hard to find). Talk to either them or their backers, to get one of them to give Kelly the 7-out for a large sum. I guarantee you will get action. If you don't want to back Kelly, then see if you can back Allison, Karen, or whoever else. I guarantee you will get action with the same spot. Make it a long race or an ahead set.

Maybe you can even arrange an 8-ball game instead of 9-ball. Being that you said Kelly beat the 8-ball ghost, and them knowing that Kelly didn't get past the first round in the NA Open, you might get a huge spot in 8-ball too.

If what you believe holds true, you might make alot of money. Be sure to toss me a jellybean for the idea if you win :)
Click to expand...


Do you care to show me where I said that Kelly could beat any top male pro consistently? Please quote it?

Believe me if I had the money and the time and Kelly had the time I'd take her to Derby City and straight up rob some of the players there. I don't honestly think that Kelly will lose for long getting a spot from Efren. Since you are so confident will you give me some odds on the money letting Kelly play Efren races to seven? I'll take 4:1 with no spot. The greatest male player in the world against a lowly girl player. She should not win a single set. Right? Never, not one, not ever. It wouldn't matter if she played a million sets she has no chance to ever win a set right?

This is all I have ever said - Kelly, Karen, Allison are good enough to take sets off of the top pros. Every set? Hell no. What male pro wins every set against his fellow male pros? Any of them? Does Kelly have decent and LEGITIMATE chance to win any given set of nine ball or eight ball against ANY male pro. You bet she does. More than you or I ever will. EVER WILL. More of a chance than a lot of male A players do. More than AA players and even a slight edge over most AAA players. What more proof do you need? Were Karen's Joss Tour wins a fluke? Did everyone else in both of the tournaments she won have the flu? Was Allison's SouthEast Tour win an accident? I guess Tommy Kennedy played her with a broken arm?

Why can't you just admit that some of the women are indded world class players in their own right? Kelly has run 8 packs - have you? You don't have to continually point out that Efren is likely to beat Kelly if they gamble to PROVE that Kelly is not "as good" as Efren. Guess what? 90% of the male pool players on the pro tour are not as good as Efren either. Depsite the FACT that Kelly is not as good as Efren do you still want to deny that she is GOOD ENOUGH to win any given set in a tournament against him or is this something that is so far outside your scope that you think it will NEVER happen. I think it could and I think it will at some point.

I hope that the world won't end. I am sure that every time Kelly wins against a top male that there will be some excuse from the bigots as to why she won.

But, I will agree with you - Kelly has no chance if she matches up with the top Filipinos. They are gods. I'll take the five out and the break from any of them on Kelly's behalf, being that she is that much weaker. I will bet $1000 per set and freeze up five set's worth. That is IF Kelly is willing to play. I am not her manager or backer or "handler" and she is not a racehorse to be put on the track for my or your entertainment. So Cuechat. if YOU want to bet YOUR money then feel free.

John
 
onepocketchump said:
One last point. Kelly rarely ventures out to play when she is at home. One of the things she did though several times was to win the local handicap tournaments after being handicaped with the highest or next to highest handicaps. This, despite having to give up signifigant weight against runout players in short sets. I know for a fact that some of the semi-pros (AAA players on my chart) aren't able to do this consistently. Kelly snapped off something like five in a row. Say what you want about relative strength but to me this is a good indication of just how strong a player she is.
Click to expand...

What are you doing man?? Don't kill your action! Lets hope Efren, Orcullo, Bustamante, Lining, etc. don't read this! Come on man, I'm telling you, go ask them to give Kelly some weight and you got action! You could make a fortune! Heck they still might give her the 7-out or more even if they do read this. If Kelly really is that good, nobody should be able to give her the 7-out! Again, if she wants to play 8-ball, they will probably offer a good spot in that too.
 
Tommy Joe said:
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
Click to expand...


Tommy,

The very fact that 20 years ago the standard for women was so weak proves my point completely. Would you care to guess how many women were playing pool seriously and competitively in Dorothy Wise's day? I would bet EVERYTHING I OWN that the ratio was something like 1:1000 or more of women who played competitively, in tournaments or gambling when Dorothy was growing up. She was the daughter of a poolroom owner and was groomed for the game. We will never know if she even had that much talent for the game, or whether that was what she really wanted to do in life.

I am sure that there are plenty of people who have anecdotal "evidence" of their strength relative to the "best" women of any era. It doesn't matter. Any poolroom is likely to have several players who can hang with the best women on some level. Why? Because there are many, many, many more male players than women. Are there likely to be local players who can consistently beat the top women now? Much less likely than 20/30 years ago.

I make this challenge to the board. Any one of you on AZB who is not a known road player and not a top pro can come to Charlotte and play Kelly Fisher with no spot. Ten ahead in 9 ball or 8 ball for $1000 per set. If there is anyone here who really thinks that they can beat Kelly and you are not known then come to Charlotte.

If you do that then I will be more than happy to admit that women are not as good as men and never will be. Come and prove to me that the average joe local hotshot can beat the best woman in the world. I can't write anymore about how good I think Kelly is. It's academic at this point. Just bring your game and your cash and get the bragging rights. In ten years you can have your own "I robbed Dorothy Wise" story to tell when this subject comes up.

John
 
cuetechasaurus said:
What are you doing man?? Don't kill your action! Lets hope Efren, Orcullo, Bustamante, Lining, etc. don't read this! Come on man, I'm telling you, go ask them to give Kelly some weight and you got action! You could make a fortune! Heck they still might give her the 7-out or more even if they do read this. If Kelly really is that good, nobody should be able to give her the 7-out! Again, if she wants to play 8-ball, they will probably offer a good spot in that too.
Click to expand...

Believe me I am not killing my action in the least. Even if any particular male player was unsure about giving Kelly weight there are ten arrogant backers who worship them so much they will get them to play.

Kelly is a professional pool player. She is not a road player or an action hound. I guarantee you that IF she had come here and learned the game from a top player in secret and then went on the road that she would have FLAT OUT robbed a lot of people whose egos overstep their abilities. All top players and people who have been around the game know this. I know you are dying to see the gender wars so you can "prove" your belief that men are superior to women. If Kelly Fisher were a male player with the same skill level she has right now then you woud be comparing her to somebody like Stevie Moore. Of that I have no doubt. You'd be praising her skill and predicting that it wouldn't be long before she's right up there with the big boys.

Cuechat - where are you located? Are you willing to have Kelly come to your state and play an exhibition against the top ten amateurs in your state? The exhibition fee is $2000 for ten races to 7. You can deduct $200 for each set that Kelly loses.

Give me your list of players and we can get started on this. As long as they are not known road players and pros you have action. Otherwise, if you want to see a prizefight then arrange an exhibition where both players get paid with the winner getting more than the loser. Pay them like the pros they are since you want them to entertain you.

John
 
DOROTHY WISE (1914 - 1995) was born in Spokane, Washington. In her early years, there were very few national tournaments for women. Since she was in many local and state tournaments, she became the self-proclaimed world champion. When BCA staged the first national tournament for women in 1967, she immediately entered. For the next five years, she proved herself most worthy as she won five consecutive U.S. Open titles."

In 1970 Dorothy Wise was 66 years old. How much of an accomlishment is it to beat a 66 year old woman who hailed from a time where women weren't even allowed in most poolrooms?

Want more?

"RUTH MCGINNIS (1910-1974), who was born in 1910, began playing pool at age 7. At 14, she had defeated both Flower Sisters, then world champions at straight pool. She was acclaimed the world women's champion for the years 1932-1940 and during that time she lost only 29 out of 1,532 exhibition matches. She entered the New York State pocket championship (until then restricted to men) in 1942 and was invited to compete for the world title in 1948. Her high runs were 85 on a 10' table and 128 on a 9' table. She had a tournament high run of 125 and was inducted into the WPBA Hall of Fame in 1976. She promoted billiards by touring extensively with Willie Mosconi and appearing in several short films about pocket billiards. Her career outside of pool was as a teacher of special children. The best female player in the country from 1924 through 1960, Ruth died in 1974 in Honesdale, PA."

Lost 29 out of 1,532 exhibition matches. Do ya' think she was only playing women in all those matches. Maybe when she did exhibitions the contract stated that she only played the weakest player in the room. How many of you think you could run 85 balls on a tight 5x10? How many women do you think were playing competively when Ruth McGuiness was "the best woman"? How many women are playing competitively now?

How many women will be playing competitively in another 20 years? Now that they are being encouraged to play and somewhat accepted as human beings with equal capabilities where will the women's game be in 20 years?

John

The quoted paragraphs came from the BCA's website. http://www.bca-pool.com/industry/hof/ind97-01.shtml
 
onepocketchump said:
Kelly against a field of 100 top male players - very tough to beat them all. Kelly against any particular male player - at least 50/50 to win in my opinion. Maybe in reality it more like 40/60 simply due to experience but it won't be ong before Kelly gets the respect due her as a player and not as a "woman" player.John
Click to expand...


All this mathematical mumbo jumbo may work with some people, but not with me. Some of your comments are remarkably redundant. For instance, "Kelly against a field of 110 top male players - very tough to beat them all." Of course it's tough. It's just as tough for the men. It's tough for anybody to go through a field of 100 competitors and come out on top.

You also mention that the men players always have excuses when they lose to women players. No kidding. Most of them have excuses when they lose to ANYBODY. Me too. I'm full of excuses. If the competitive quality of women's pool were intensified, you can beat they'd be making excuses and expressing their negative feelings too. But for now if things get too tough playing the men they can always run back to their own league - and that has been the main issue with me from the start.

Anyway, for me this discussion is basically over, because you are convinced the answer to the original question is simply that women don't field as many players as the men. That may or may not be. Certainly it means something, no argument there. But I don't believe it's the only answer. And it really doesn't matter, because as I said in an earlier post, there will NEVER be as many women playing professional pool as men, or for that matter ANY professional sport in which men are allowed or encouraged to compete. So your reason for women not playing as well overall as men is one that will never go away. And women will continue to have this excuse forever. But is it really their excuse, or is it just yours? You say the men make excuses when the lose, implying the women players don't. Well, that don't have to make excuses, not when they've got guys like you to do it for them. Thanks for your response, John. By the way, who started this thread anyway?

Tommy Joe
 
whitewolf said:
BullSh!t. When I was young and in shape I did 3,000 hoola hoops without stopping, and it did indeed take indurance.
Click to expand...


PROVE IT! Do you have it on tape? Were there any witnesses? I demand proof!

Tommy Joe (just kidding)
 
whitewolf said:
Cornerman said:
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.

Fred
Click to expand...


BullSh!t. When I was young and in shape I did 3,000 hoola hoops without stopping, and it did indeed take indurance. :D
Click to expand...
Why do you EVER bother responding to anything I write when you can't read and comprehend anything??? Read what you've quoted. The words are still there, warm from the typewriter ink.

I made it very specific so that we (the people who can understand the written word) can examine a physical, but non-demanding motion.

And does everyone else understand the idea of "examining the average man vs. the average woman"? I know some people do understand, and I know the people that don't and won't get it.

Fred
 
Congradulations to myself....I read the title thread, clicked on the last post(there-bye avoiding all the above verbiage), and typed a few strokes. An old dog can learn new tricks....
Rocky Marciano beats Ali in a three second bout...LOL
 
Tommy Joe said:
All this mathematical mumbo jumbo may work with some people, but not with me. Some of your comments are remarkably redundant. For instance, "Kelly against a field of 110 top male players - very tough to beat them all." Of course it's tough. It's just as tough for the men. It's tough for anybody to go through a field of 100 competitors and come out on top.

You also mention that the men players always have excuses when they lose to women players. No kidding. Most of them have excuses when they lose to ANYBODY. Me too. I'm full of excuses. If the competitive quality of women's pool were intensified, you can beat they'd be making excuses and expressing their negative feelings too. But for now if things get too tough playing the men they can always run back to their own league - and that has been the main issue with me from the start.

Anyway, for me this discussion is basically over, because you are convinced the answer to the original question is simply that women don't field as many players as the men. That may or may not be. Certainly it means something, no argument there. But I don't believe it's the only answer. And it really doesn't matter, because as I said in an earlier post, there will NEVER be as many women playing professional pool as men, or for that matter ANY professional sport in which men are allowed or encouraged to compete. So your reason for women not playing as well overall as men is one that will never go away. And women will continue to have this excuse forever. But is it really their excuse, or is it just yours? You say the men make excuses when the lose, implying the women players don't. Well, that don't have to make excuses, not when they've got guys like you to do it for them. Thanks for your response, John. By the way, who started this thread anyway?

Tommy Joe
Click to expand...

Remarkably redundant? I point out the actual numbers and that's somehow redundant? Until you have a tournament where the field is made of roughly equal participants from each gender and they all have about the same level of experience and access you will never be able to prove that women are inferior to men as pool players based on their tournament performances. If a woman beats top male players and does well in a tournament where she is vastly outnumbered then she is beating the odds based on the current established average level of skill between men as a group and women as a group.

Let's look at this another way. Do you feel that there are more world class male players today than there were 50 years ago? You have apparently been around the game a bit. Do you think the average ability of players worldwide is better or worse than it was 50 years ago? If you say yes, why do you think that is?

Let's look at Germany. 20 years ago pool wasn't that popular in Germany. Players like Toby Sweet, an AAA road player from Florida and Tom Brown could go over there and stone cold rob most of the players giving up pretty decent weight. Players like Chance Chin used to just kill the best players in Germany. Chance, as good as he is, wouldn't make it two rounds in the IPT. Throughout the 90's pool blossomed in Germany. Hundreds of clubs popped up. Leagues were organized, the best players were grouped together and competed intensively. Pool was treated as a sport and as a result of more people playing in a highly competitive and organized enviroment Germany has a pretty high level of pool players by capita. Now Toby Sweet would get flat out busted if he tried to go to Germany and play those guys even.

I can't conclude that the fact that Germany produces such good players is the result of some kind of genetic or biological superiority. It directly correlates to the rise in the number of people playing and the enviroment which offers plenty of organized and constant high level competition. Conclusion, in my opinion, more Germans playing equals more world class German players.

I know the numbers game doesn't work for you. For now though you just have to accept though that the pool of pool-playin' girls to draw from has gone from practically non-existent 50 years ago to marginal today. I think that given that the odds are so stacked against them it is quite admirable that there are women who do have the talent and skill to take down the men occassionally even if they "do" handicap themselves a bit by sticking mosty to the women's tour.

John
 
Regarding excuses:

Kelly lost matches in the IPT. She very matter of factly stated that she made too many mistakes.

Kelly lost to a local road player. She stated very clearly that she was outplayed.

Kelly beat a good local shortstop and it was rumored that he was "sick" or not feeling well that day.

Kelly is always very frank about why she loses and very accurate about analyzing the match. There is no ego or gender issues. It's all about how the match went, what she did right and what she did wrong, the good things her opponent did and the things she needs to work on. This is how a true champion treats the game.

John
 
Chris said:
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 etc. 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.
Click to expand...

The comments I made were to give people an idea of the obvious inherent differences between men and women.

I do understand where you guys are coming from in saying that physical differences between the sexes will have no bearing on the way they play the game, but you are just dead wrong. You need to think of it like football (for example), where there is obvioulsy a huge advantage for men. Now, in pool, the advantage isn't nearly as big, BUT IT IS THERE.

To prove it go get the top 10 breakers on the mens side and womens side and measure their velocity, action number of balls made etc. You will see a huge difference and thus an advantage.

I'm not saying the break shot is the only place where an advantage will manifest itself, but just using it as ONE (of the many possible) example. If you fail to realize this I put you in the same category as creationists and I simply refuse to discuss it with you anymore (yes, you have my word on that).
 
Last edited:
enzo said:
The comments I made were to give people an idea of the obvious inherent differences between men and women.

I do understand where you guys are coming from in saying that physical differences between the sexes will have no bearing on the way they play the game, but you are just dead wrong. You need to think of it like football (for example), where there is obvioulsy a huge advantage for men. Now, in pool, the advantage isn't nearly as big, BUT IT IS THERE.

To prove it go get the top 10 breakers on the mens side and womens side and measure their velocity, action number of balls made etc. You will see a huge difference and thus an advantage.

I'm not saying the break shot is the only place where an advantage will manifest itself, but just using it as ONE (of the many possible) example. If you fail to realize this I put you in the same category as creationists and I simply refuse to discuss it with you anymore (yes, you have my word on that).
Click to expand...


This assumes that a hard break is all there is to the game. If I gave you the break what else could you say is a physical requirement that gives men a distinct physical advantage over women?

Once again though I have to point out a few things regarding numbers. Since there are more men playing there will be more men with harder breaks. Statisically the women as a group will have lower power breaks given that they are weaker players on average.

Having said that though I have to say that there are several women who are regarded to have breaks "like a man". Tiffany Nelson, Jasmin Ouschan, my ex-wife Jayne, even Kelly Fisher has a strong break. How do you explain Alex Pagulayan's break? How about Varner's? Most of the women on tour outweigh those two.

Now, there may well be some sort of physiological difference between men and women that does cause them to get down on the shot differently. I don't see anything though that explains how so many men of so many different body types are able to play high level pool. Surely we could find examples of men and women players who have approxiamtely the same body size and shape. I would love to see anyone explain rationally how two players who are nearly identical in size and shape differ in terms of physical ability required to play the game of pool.

John
 
cheesemouse said:
Congradulations to myself....I read the title thread, clicked on the last post(there-bye avoiding all the above verbiage), and typed a few strokes. An old dog can learn new tricks....
Click to expand...

Good move, you did the smart thing - IF you really did it.

Tommy Joe (I must have proof)
 
onepocketchump said:
Remarkably redundant? I point out the actual numbers and that's somehow redundant? Until you have a tournament where the field is made of roughly equal participants from each gender and they all have about the same level of experience and access you will never be able to prove that women are inferior to men as pool players based on their tournament performances. If a woman beats top male players and does well in a tournament where she is vastly outnumbered then she is beating the odds based on the current established average level of skill between men as a group and women as a group.John
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't a numbers game. Of course numbers mean something. My main involvement in this discussion concerned women having their own league to fall back on. Can a man fall back on a special league when he's beaten by better men?

I understand your argument. I just don't think it's the whole answer. if there must be one. If the women's field produces less good players than that of men, of course it can be argued it's because less women play the game - that makes sense - but I am saying there will always be less women this game, or any game on a professional level - so that's just the way it is and probably always will be. And it's a two-way street. Women and men are where they're at today based on collective human will. Women are no more enslaved by the rigors of life than men are.

I also never said there aren't a few good female players out there or that one day there couldn't be more. I do not dispute your reference to the sudden emergence of European players and others around the world in countries where only a short time ago pocket billiards was not even played. I am not at all surprised. Please note that most of the players from those countries are men, which means that now there even more tough players go through - for men and women alike. You're always going to see less women competing in sports because it's not their main function, which is not to say this can't change in the future - maybe when men are able to have babies, and their wives can go out and play pool every day.

One last thing, and I'm serious. Women have one advantage today, as evidenced by your vocal support of Kelly Fisher - which is this: Since there are less of them competing it's more for someone to throw financial support toward a woman who shows promise. You find a guy plays good, you might have a shot at going somewhere with him - but you find a woman who can play just a little bit, it's more likely she can make money on the less competitive women's tour. I don't know that for a fact, but it makes sense to me. It's funny how the disadvantages of women are always mentioned, while their advantages are quietly ignored. You talk about them as if they're an endangered species requiring special attention. This holds them back. You must release them, John! Uncage the women now, and let them fly on their own. hah hah hah hah hah

Tommy Joe
 
onepocketchump said:
I think that given that the odds are so stacked against them it is quite admirable that there are women who do have the talent and skill to take down the men occassionally even if they "do" handicap themselves a bit by sticking mosty to the women's tour.John
Click to expand...

Oh good, I think we're finally getting down to the real argument, one that extends beyond the realm of billiards. You feel that women have the odds stacked against them. I don't look at it that way. You make it sound almost malicious the way you say that, "Odds stacked against them." Now maybe you don't mean it that way, but that's the way it comes across to me, as if it's some kind of conspiracy on the part of men, and a freedom-fight for the women. I don't think they need your support, John. In fact, as a part-time self-made psycho behaviorist, I believe that subconsciously your purpose in supporting women is to coddle them to the point where they can't advance - so you can continue protecting them by keeping them in a cage. Let them fly, John - let them fly! hah hah hah

Tommy Joe
 
onepocketchump said:
Kelly is always very frank about why she loses and very accurate about analyzing the match. There is no ego or gender issues. It's all about how the match went, what she did right and what she did wrong, the good things her opponent did and the things she needs to work on. This is how a true champion treats the game.John
Click to expand...


Oh man, am I ever going to get out of this thread? You may not be aware, but you seemed to imply that men make more excuses than women when they lose. Now you bring your friend Kelly in as an example. Surely you know there are men have these same qualities. You are using Kelly's positives as an example for all women, while using the negative behavior of a few men as an example for all men. That is unfair and violates the rules of the numbers game. As I said before, when we see more women on skid and death row, maybe we'll see more of them on the pool table.

Tommy Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top