Why can't women play as good as men?
- Thread starter Harvywallbanger
- Start date
Tommy Joe: You're never going to get out of this thread if you keep reading more into what people write than what they intended to say.Tommy Joe said:
Stick to the facts without embellishing it.
onepocketchump said:
John, you seem to want people to accept that women can and will play even with men eventually, but I still say you're living in a dreamworld. In fact nine ball (and maybe eight ball) are the ONLY billiard games where women even have a chance against top men, and those are the ones that 'seem' to require a big break. If you expand the games to include the 'non breaking' games, you can actually see the disparity is a lot higher. Women may win sets in nine-ball, even lots of them (but probably only in short races). But they are certainly not going to defeat the top men in one pocket, straight pool, 3 cushion, or snooker - it wouldn't even be close.
As to why, the best explanation I ever heard came from a lady who was a decent player and who speculated that men, during their youth, tended to play games involving throwing, thereby strengthening their forearm and wrist muscles. Most young girls don't play those games (baseball, football, cricket, etc.) and hence the muscles don't get developed. There may be some truth to it, because many of the women who play pool well played a lot of sports in their youth, but it's hard to say for sure.
What is easy to say is that in all sports, including pool, the disparity between male competitors and women is huge (possible exceptions are auto racing and equestrian sports). There are a lot of people who wish this weren't true, but it is. That doesn't mean that women's sports aren't fun to watch, because they are. But if you watch women play sports and think they're playing at a skill even close to comparable to the top men, you're kidding yourself.
gromulan said:
It's not the muscles which is the issue. This presupposes that unless you develop muscles as a child they can never be developed for the rest of your life, which is entirely untrue. Throwing a ball requires different muscles than stroking a cue anyways.
It has more to do with the development of hand eye co-ordination. This can be done in ways other than sports. Even knitting or sowing.
But this discussion is getting sillier as it goes on. Discussing muscles and physical differences may work in Tennis, Golf, Football, Basketball, Boxing, Cricket, Baseball etc. But we are talking about BILLIARDS, a game that requires the use of very few muscles, comparatively. It is just a back and forward motion people. As long as these girls can stroke perfectly straight (which they can), the only physical discussion should revolve around the break.
The reason many of these women (excluding Jeanette and Jasmine and any others I haven't thought of) have pitiful high run records in 14.1 is because they don't play it often. There are few tournaments to play in. I suck at 1 pocket because I play it once in a blue moon, if that.
As for Snooker I have never seen women's snooker, but I expect that there are very few women getting involved in Snooker.
I am very convinced that it has plenty to do with numbers and competition. We have already discussed numbers to death. I think the fact that the women seclude themselves, and are secluded in some cases, and simply play among themselves they are evolving as a group seperate from the men. You rise to the level of your competition, that is a common saying right? Notice how soon after Allison and Karen came along, a bunch more women have risen to the ocassion.
The advice that is most commonly given out to people learning this game "if you want to get better play better players". Well the best they have on the WPBA are Karen and Allison, and many aren't venturing further than that (not that I am aware of). Imagine if somebody only ever played in a bar league with bar players who play at C and D speeds. How good would that person ever get?
enzo said:
To make it a statistically valid comparison, take the top ten female breakers and measure their average CB velocity, and take the top 300-500 male breakers and measure their average CB velocity.
Top ten vs. top ten proves absolutely nothing unless you have the same size group to draw from. This is not the case in pool, and until it is any assumptions that males are better suited for the sport are not based on facts.
I do find it rather comical that you compare me to a creationist! If you only knew me, lol. The scientific method trumps beliefs every time, which is why I make the argument I'm making.
JennyCorvette
Registered
Very interesting thread. Tho I must admit I only read thru the beginning and the end of it... I skimmed a lot because it's turned into a scientific debate and as we all know, girls aren't all that great at science. 
The real reason girls aren't all that great at science is the same reason boys aren't all that good at English... it simply doesn't interest them enough.
As a pretty decent amatuer girl player (SL6) with what's been termed a "monster break" (on barboxes, which I know are another story) despite my having no upper body strength at all, with a background of softball and bowling and an English degree, I have strictly a "social" theory on why girls are not as good as boys at pool. They are simply raised with the idea that it's a boy's game. Only time will change that. Also, girls are raised being told that boys are better at pool than girls are... so of course it's true. No girl in her right mind can be as confident as a top level boy player. Especially since girls lack self esteem anyway. Only time and success can change that. I agree with the many people who said that girls competition must improve for them to improve, as well.
I completely disagree with the physical theories, since breaking is less about power and more about a good cue ball hit and accurate aiming. Anyway, we girls know that the easiest way to beat a good boy is to soft break him and outsmart him on the table. I'm speaking strictly from my own amateur experiences, however, and I realize that at the pro level things are much different.
Also, I feel obligated to address the boob issue raised about 7 pages ago. I'm smal breasted (32B, I'm not ashamed to admit it) and I use my boobie as a guide for my cue. Hey, whatever works...
The real reason girls aren't all that great at science is the same reason boys aren't all that good at English... it simply doesn't interest them enough.
As a pretty decent amatuer girl player (SL6) with what's been termed a "monster break" (on barboxes, which I know are another story) despite my having no upper body strength at all, with a background of softball and bowling and an English degree, I have strictly a "social" theory on why girls are not as good as boys at pool. They are simply raised with the idea that it's a boy's game. Only time will change that. Also, girls are raised being told that boys are better at pool than girls are... so of course it's true. No girl in her right mind can be as confident as a top level boy player. Especially since girls lack self esteem anyway. Only time and success can change that. I agree with the many people who said that girls competition must improve for them to improve, as well.
I completely disagree with the physical theories, since breaking is less about power and more about a good cue ball hit and accurate aiming. Anyway, we girls know that the easiest way to beat a good boy is to soft break him and outsmart him on the table. I'm speaking strictly from my own amateur experiences, however, and I realize that at the pro level things are much different.
Also, I feel obligated to address the boob issue raised about 7 pages ago. I'm smal breasted (32B, I'm not ashamed to admit it) and I use my boobie as a guide for my cue. Hey, whatever works...
In general terms, they lack the absolute killer instinct. Sure, they can be intense and highly competitive, but as a whole, women don't ratchet up to that level. Physical limitations should not be an issue in pool, the difference between the genders on a pool table is simply mental.
Last edited:
JennyCorvette said:Very interesting thread. Tho I must admit I only read thru the beginning and the end of it... I skimmed a lot because it's turned into a scientific debate and as we all know, girls aren't all that great at science.
The real reason girls aren't all that great at science is the same reason boys aren't all that good at English... it simply doesn't interest them enough.
As a pretty decent amatuer girl player (SL6) with what's been termed a "monster break" (on barboxes, which I know are another story) despite my having no upper body strength at all, with a background of softball and bowling and an English degree, I have strictly a "social" theory on why girls are not as good as boys at pool. They are simply raised with the idea that it's a boy's game. Only time will change that. Also, girls are raised being told that boys are better at pool than girls are... so of course it's true. No girl in her right mind can be as confident as a top level boy player. Especially since girls lack self esteem anyway. Only time and success can change that. I agree with the many people who said that girls competition must improve for them to improve, as well.
I completely disagree with the physical theories, since breaking is less about power and more about a good cue ball hit and accurate aiming. Anyway, we girls know that the easiest way to beat a good boy is to soft break him and outsmart him on the table. I'm speaking strictly from my own amateur experiences, however, and I realize that at the pro level things are much different.
Also, I feel obligated to address the boob issue raised about 7 pages ago. I'm smal breasted (32B, I'm not ashamed to admit it) and I use my boobie as a guide for my cue. Hey, whatever works...
What an excellent first post! Welcome aboard, Jenny.
To be the Champ....you gotta beat the Champ....
None of these so-called female champions are NOT champions and they're not even close. To call them "Champions" is fraudulant use of the term.
Jean Balukas is still the Champ.
No woman alive can beat her. Allison would get blown off the table. Jeannette is no threat to Jean. Jean was running 100's when Jasmin was in diapers. Most of these new "talents" would probably quit the game if they ever did face the likes of Jean Balukas.
Jean is simply the best there is, the best there was and the best, perhaps, that ever will be.
Why can't they beat the men? Hell, they can't even beat Jean!
Theres only two reasons why:
1. Jean can put her emotions on the shelf and get down and play. The other women can't do that.
2. Jean doesn't give games away. You have to beat her. The other girls don't beat each other. One girl wins because the other girl LOSES and that decides who the so-called "Champion" is.
When Jean was competing she had few friends. The Association has dropped the fine and invited her back and Jean refuses to go back to all the back biting and hatred that was directed towards her.
If she did make a comeback, all the other girls would, again, be playing for 2nd place.
Before the women can think about competing with the men, they have to beat Jean and, that....none of them can do.
Popman.
None of these so-called female champions are NOT champions and they're not even close. To call them "Champions" is fraudulant use of the term.
Jean Balukas is still the Champ.
No woman alive can beat her. Allison would get blown off the table. Jeannette is no threat to Jean. Jean was running 100's when Jasmin was in diapers. Most of these new "talents" would probably quit the game if they ever did face the likes of Jean Balukas.
Jean is simply the best there is, the best there was and the best, perhaps, that ever will be.
Why can't they beat the men? Hell, they can't even beat Jean!
Theres only two reasons why:
1. Jean can put her emotions on the shelf and get down and play. The other women can't do that.
2. Jean doesn't give games away. You have to beat her. The other girls don't beat each other. One girl wins because the other girl LOSES and that decides who the so-called "Champion" is.
When Jean was competing she had few friends. The Association has dropped the fine and invited her back and Jean refuses to go back to all the back biting and hatred that was directed towards her.
If she did make a comeback, all the other girls would, again, be playing for 2nd place.
Before the women can think about competing with the men, they have to beat Jean and, that....none of them can do.
Popman.
Last edited:
the only way to know if the best female player can beat one of the best male, i think is, you take say, allison, or jasmine, and take deuel, put them on a table where they play 9ball a race to say, 17, alternate breaks. but they will NOT KNOW who they are playing. the location must have 2 seperate rooms on each side where every player must leave after their turn at the table. there sure must be a referee. lets say deuel runs the first. leaves the room, jasmine comes in, say she misses, leaves, deuel comes back in and so on.
now i am sure that since they dont know who they are playing, female player WILL think she is playing against a man. and the male player will think he is playing against a MAN. now what does this tell you? me? i dont know. JMO.
now i am sure that since they dont know who they are playing, female player WILL think she is playing against a man. and the male player will think he is playing against a MAN. now what does this tell you? me? i dont know. JMO.
I know a lady (Tara McKracken) who shoots out of Clicks on Marsh and Rosemeade that has wiped the floor with many a road player and pro who's come through. The girl ran 9 racks of 9-ball on me one night and then I proceeded to win one, break dry, and she ran another 12 on a 9 foot brunswick with simonis 860 and this is not the best she can play...
If we refer to "Men" as Reyes, then, yes women can't beat men. But if we refer "men" like say, Earl or the mouth then yes women can beat men. Earl and the mouth were beaten by women in the IPT. Many men did not go the distance but few women were. So it really depends on who are the "men" we refer to.
xidica said:
Sorry, but I call bullshit on this one. First, you ruined her action (if anyone is dumb enough to believe you). Second, running 21 racks in two innings would be a world record for a male or female, this would spread thru the pool world like wildfire. I don't believe you at all.