This is the best post in the thread. :thumbup:
Why is there seperate men and women touranments?
- Thread starter Kim Bye
- Start date
This is the best post in the thread. :thumbup:
I've sometimes wondered how long it would take to crown a woman champion if there was a tour where the top 32 men in the world and the top 32 women in the world were only allowed to play? Let's say there was such a tour and held this tournament format every other month. How long do you think it would be before a woman won in this scenario?
My guess would be in 3 years time/within 18 tournaments.
Maniac
My guess would be in 3 years time/within 18 tournaments.
Maniac
Race to what, 7/9/11/13/15/21?
Would it be seeded? :grin:
How many of the top 32 women players are in the top 64 of pool payers regardless of gender? So the question really is more along the lines of "How long would it take one of the top 4-5 women to win against the top 32 men"? Because really only the top few women have much of a chance.
In answer to that question, I think it would be a long shot but certainly one of the very top female players might take it down at any point. That's a little different though than the question of women being able to make a half decent living competing against the men on an ongoing basis.
Last edited:
Slh...You need to read the book, "Talent Is Overrated". You might learn something.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Women vs men
Many have offered reasons why economics and the like have influenced the sport but that still doesn't answer the question why the top women players still have to work much harder to beat the top male players on a consistent basis?
Sure, we can debate how the break makes a difference and other than the strength factor, all else should be equal and yet it doesn't seem to pan out that way over time.
I would contend that the difference MAY be as simple as the way the male and female minds works phisiologically.
Males, by virtue of testosterone, tend to play more agressively and studies show that "chance favors the bold."
If the difference is nothing more than the small statistical edge that comes from more assertive play, then that would be enough to make all the difference: however, it's clear that men and women process information differently as well and it's likely that this has as much of a factor in performance as the chemicals.
I find that the top male players are more inclined to take risks and break out clusters for a chance at the run, where many female players will opt for a safety and hope for a better opportunity. Essentially, men and women weigh risk/reward ratios differently.
In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before an agressive minded female will enter the stage and put a new spin on everyones perspective.
Many have offered reasons why economics and the like have influenced the sport but that still doesn't answer the question why the top women players still have to work much harder to beat the top male players on a consistent basis?
Sure, we can debate how the break makes a difference and other than the strength factor, all else should be equal and yet it doesn't seem to pan out that way over time.
I would contend that the difference MAY be as simple as the way the male and female minds works phisiologically.
Males, by virtue of testosterone, tend to play more agressively and studies show that "chance favors the bold."
If the difference is nothing more than the small statistical edge that comes from more assertive play, then that would be enough to make all the difference: however, it's clear that men and women process information differently as well and it's likely that this has as much of a factor in performance as the chemicals.
I find that the top male players are more inclined to take risks and break out clusters for a chance at the run, where many female players will opt for a safety and hope for a better opportunity. Essentially, men and women weigh risk/reward ratios differently.
In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before an agressive minded female will enter the stage and put a new spin on everyones perspective.
There are likely a number of reasons why the men's game is ahead of the ladies, some of which would be debated in the scientific community. But the most significant of these reasons probably is simple math. The population of men players is so much larger than that of women that the best of the men are bound to be better than the best of the ladies.
Not Sure Why Women Can’t Beat Men
I am not sure why women pro’s can’t beat men pro’s.
The simple fact is they can’t, not now not ever.
It is not a math question?
Sure more men play than women, but that doesn’t mean that by now we couldn’t have seen that women of a lifetime?
By now in 2011 surely there should have been one women pro pool player in the history of the world that could beat our Efren, Francisco, SVB, Strickland, Mosconi, Greenleaf, Crane, Lassiter, Keith, Buddy, Bug’s, UJ Puckett, Dallas West, Moore, Reid, Cornbread Red, Marshall, Cookie Monster, Boston Shorty, Soquet, Immonen, Hohmann, Appleton, Nevel, Brumback, Shannon, Schmidt, Joyner , DeChaine, Varner, Corey, Pagulayan and the rest of the Filipinos, and the list goes on and on………..............
Probability suggest that there will be a women that will be able to beat all of the men for a given time period.
However, in my opinion that won’t happen in our life time.
Women or men can make up reasons why the women can’t beat men. Simple fact is it hasn’t happened yet? :frown:
Oh, by the way Gerda Hoffstetter beat me like a drum for over 8 hours, man she can play, but I am not Archer either.
Last year, I beat Francisco Bustamante…….
Okay….to the chicken wings at Barrio Fiesta in Milpitas Ca.
Gotta Go, my wife wants me to take out the trash, Barney :smile:
I am not sure why women pro’s can’t beat men pro’s.
The simple fact is they can’t, not now not ever.
It is not a math question?
Sure more men play than women, but that doesn’t mean that by now we couldn’t have seen that women of a lifetime?
By now in 2011 surely there should have been one women pro pool player in the history of the world that could beat our Efren, Francisco, SVB, Strickland, Mosconi, Greenleaf, Crane, Lassiter, Keith, Buddy, Bug’s, UJ Puckett, Dallas West, Moore, Reid, Cornbread Red, Marshall, Cookie Monster, Boston Shorty, Soquet, Immonen, Hohmann, Appleton, Nevel, Brumback, Shannon, Schmidt, Joyner , DeChaine, Varner, Corey, Pagulayan and the rest of the Filipinos, and the list goes on and on………..............
Probability suggest that there will be a women that will be able to beat all of the men for a given time period.
However, in my opinion that won’t happen in our life time.
Women or men can make up reasons why the women can’t beat men. Simple fact is it hasn’t happened yet? :frown:
Oh, by the way Gerda Hoffstetter beat me like a drum for over 8 hours, man she can play, but I am not Archer either.
Last year, I beat Francisco Bustamante…….
Okay….to the chicken wings at Barrio Fiesta in Milpitas Ca.
Gotta Go, my wife wants me to take out the trash, Barney :smile:
I see many posts stating that the mens league has i higher standard. I have no problem with that argument, just look at Ralf Souquet, Mika Immonen etc. these guys play almost flawless.
If women played alongside the men, wouldn't that force them to raise the bar?
I guess what i'm trying to say is: if the standard in the womens pool league is that much lower than the mens league, wouldn't the female players actually benifit from playing with the top male players?
If women played alongside the men, wouldn't that force them to raise the bar?
I guess what i'm trying to say is: if the standard in the womens pool league is that much lower than the mens league, wouldn't the female players actually benifit from playing with the top male players?
Without a doubt they would. So would most of the male players out there.:grin:
Best,
Mike
They play alongside men every day. Seriously, there are very few women's only events. If they want to play pool more than 4 times a year, they have to play men. As well, many events that showcase the top players are open to anyone. Look no further than the Joss Tour.
I think you're right on point. Earl thinks nothing of playing a 4 rail shot for position or drawing 12 feet. The women play more one rail position. If they have to draw it's usually no more than 4 feet generally. As soon as they change their approach a little they will be a factor in any tournament.
You are right , anything can happen in a given set.
They might beat 1 or 2 or even 3 , a couple might even win one if they get in enough.
Doe's that mean they play as good ?
I always thought Allison played as good of patterns as most of the men.
She also had great cueball control and could come with a strong shot when she needed to.
That's why I said I think the break is the big factor.
The men put together bigger packages and that is what usually wins.
Absolutely!
The biggest reason they don't do that is financial.
The men havcan play in a tournament and get beat but learn a few things and go home and gamble and win their money back plus.
Since most of the women don't gamble big , if they lose every tournament and can't recoup, where is the incentive to go play?
Plus, even if you are one of the top ten women in the world , going to a tournament and getting crushed would demoralize a lot of people and cost them, even against other women.
that "doubt" seed is a big pill to swallow.
This is an interesting question this thread has stumbled upon. I didn't read all of the replies so I'm not sure if someone mentioned this possibility, which I tend to believe is a major contributor for the disparity of performance between men and women in pool (disregarding the other issues other posters have brought up such as strength which I believe isn't too important and the fact that women have staggeringly less interest in pool which definitely is a big contributor).
You see this disparity at all levels whether you are watching the top men and women professionals or even in a bar watching inexperienced players. It's obvious to anyone that knows the game of pocket billiards. Sure, what's her name beat SVB from way behind in a big match. Does anyone actually believe she could consistently match up with him? Win say 45% of her matches say of races to 11 against SVB. It's possible I suppose, but I haven't seen her play much so I can't even give my opinion on that question; however, that's just one example of most likely one the best female players out there currently. Jean Balukas is another example. Alison Fisher is another, but I wouldn't bet a dime on her beating any top 20 male pro in any given match. I'd want big time odds on that bet. (Maybe I'm a horrible odds maker.. it's possible!)
It's clear from a lot of educational research that young females find learning and retaining the subject of mathematics much more difficult than their male peers. Especially here in the US. In other countries, such as in Asian countries (China, India, to name a couple) females perform much better than females in the US and the disparity between males and females is much less or non-existent depending on the demographics in Asian countries. Now, what we don't really know is if females have to work much harder than males in those demographics to 'overcome' some hardwiring. The obvious disparity between males and females in the US is cultural. In Asia, learning mathematics is seen as essential even for females. Here, not so much.
Now, I know from experience that mathematics (e.g. plane geometry which everyone learns at some point even in public schools here, but even more advanced subjects such as topology, number theory, etc etc..) require fast and accurate visualization of the concepts. These are many times abstract concepts, however to understand and utilize these concepts such as functions, fields, operations, sets, whatever it may be.. mathematicians (which are largely made up of men) typically use visual imagery.
You are also constantly using this type of visual imagery in your mind either consciously or sub-consciously when playing pool. Constantly. Walking around the table, visualizing a route for the cueball to get somewhere, getting down on the shot and aiming which is again visualizing along with actually looking and aiming. Outside of anxiety during a match, I believe this is the biggest mental strain while playing pool. The more trained you are to do this sub-consciously, the less the strain on your mind. That comes from experience. Sometimes you don't need to think consciously to visualize an 'angle' if you are playing well
I have no idea if females are inherently less able, equal to, or better than males with this type of thinking. In fact nobody does right now. The current status quo, especially in terms of adapting our educational system to bring females to the levels of males in the subjects of math and physics in the US, is to assume that females have equal potential as males since it's probably impossible to prove definitively what the case actually is. Given a single female she could have 1000x the potential than a given male. I'm talking averages of huge populations.
It's super complicated, and I don't know all of the details about this, but I tend to believe that males are hardwired via evolution to be better than their females counterparts at this type of 'thinking'. Probably has something to do with having to hunt, find food, escape predators and to be able to defend physically. High level mathematics over the past say 2000 years and physics say over the past 300 years is evidence of this if you ignore the cultural factors. Pool is another glaring example of this if you ask me, but that just my opinion. The human mind although amazingly powerful has finite capabilities. The problems females needed to solve while human minds were evolving (as they are right now) were different than the problems men had to solve in pre-historic times and even up until say the industrial revolution. It's only been a couple of hundred years since the industrial revolution, and significant evolution requires a much longer time scale especially given the average human life span is very lone (~60-70 years) and relatively low birth rate (compared to other species).
Again, this is all speculative on my part, but it really is quite interesting.
You see this disparity at all levels whether you are watching the top men and women professionals or even in a bar watching inexperienced players. It's obvious to anyone that knows the game of pocket billiards. Sure, what's her name beat SVB from way behind in a big match. Does anyone actually believe she could consistently match up with him? Win say 45% of her matches say of races to 11 against SVB. It's possible I suppose, but I haven't seen her play much so I can't even give my opinion on that question; however, that's just one example of most likely one the best female players out there currently. Jean Balukas is another example. Alison Fisher is another, but I wouldn't bet a dime on her beating any top 20 male pro in any given match. I'd want big time odds on that bet. (Maybe I'm a horrible odds maker.. it's possible!)
It's clear from a lot of educational research that young females find learning and retaining the subject of mathematics much more difficult than their male peers. Especially here in the US. In other countries, such as in Asian countries (China, India, to name a couple) females perform much better than females in the US and the disparity between males and females is much less or non-existent depending on the demographics in Asian countries. Now, what we don't really know is if females have to work much harder than males in those demographics to 'overcome' some hardwiring. The obvious disparity between males and females in the US is cultural. In Asia, learning mathematics is seen as essential even for females. Here, not so much.
Now, I know from experience that mathematics (e.g. plane geometry which everyone learns at some point even in public schools here, but even more advanced subjects such as topology, number theory, etc etc..) require fast and accurate visualization of the concepts. These are many times abstract concepts, however to understand and utilize these concepts such as functions, fields, operations, sets, whatever it may be.. mathematicians (which are largely made up of men) typically use visual imagery.
You are also constantly using this type of visual imagery in your mind either consciously or sub-consciously when playing pool. Constantly. Walking around the table, visualizing a route for the cueball to get somewhere, getting down on the shot and aiming which is again visualizing along with actually looking and aiming. Outside of anxiety during a match, I believe this is the biggest mental strain while playing pool. The more trained you are to do this sub-consciously, the less the strain on your mind. That comes from experience. Sometimes you don't need to think consciously to visualize an 'angle' if you are playing well
I have no idea if females are inherently less able, equal to, or better than males with this type of thinking. In fact nobody does right now. The current status quo, especially in terms of adapting our educational system to bring females to the levels of males in the subjects of math and physics in the US, is to assume that females have equal potential as males since it's probably impossible to prove definitively what the case actually is. Given a single female she could have 1000x the potential than a given male. I'm talking averages of huge populations.
It's super complicated, and I don't know all of the details about this, but I tend to believe that males are hardwired via evolution to be better than their females counterparts at this type of 'thinking'. Probably has something to do with having to hunt, find food, escape predators and to be able to defend physically. High level mathematics over the past say 2000 years and physics say over the past 300 years is evidence of this if you ignore the cultural factors. Pool is another glaring example of this if you ask me, but that just my opinion. The human mind although amazingly powerful has finite capabilities. The problems females needed to solve while human minds were evolving (as they are right now) were different than the problems men had to solve in pre-historic times and even up until say the industrial revolution. It's only been a couple of hundred years since the industrial revolution, and significant evolution requires a much longer time scale especially given the average human life span is very lone (~60-70 years) and relatively low birth rate (compared to other species).
Again, this is all speculative on my part, but it really is quite interesting.
Last edited:
There are physiological differences between MOST men and MOST women (there are always exceptions) that impact on the game a person has...such as upperbody strength (ratio of accelerative/explosive muscles (blue) to endurance/strength muscles (red)), hand strength, bone structure, etc.
Not naming names, but I've seen more than one top tier female player get smoked in regional tourneys by As and Bs...sure, there are a few that COULD (theoretically) get well into the money in a major open, but many try and I can't name any that have done it. Once upon a time there were a couple of female players like Belinda Beardon, Jean Balukas and I'm drawing a blank on an obvious third lady that were believed good enough to sweat a bet on to get high in the money of a given U.S. Open (if allowed at the time)...but they were rare, and never did really cash in anything big. Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, those ladies played a very physical style of pool similar to a top male player's game.
The top women are putting in the hours, spending a lot of time playing top men players, and have access to major open events...but until one places in the top three of the U.S. Open I'll let the data speak for itself. My prediction is that if it ever does happen, she'll be from Asia.......
Not naming names, but I've seen more than one top tier female player get smoked in regional tourneys by As and Bs...sure, there are a few that COULD (theoretically) get well into the money in a major open, but many try and I can't name any that have done it. Once upon a time there were a couple of female players like Belinda Beardon, Jean Balukas and I'm drawing a blank on an obvious third lady that were believed good enough to sweat a bet on to get high in the money of a given U.S. Open (if allowed at the time)...but they were rare, and never did really cash in anything big. Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, those ladies played a very physical style of pool similar to a top male player's game.
The top women are putting in the hours, spending a lot of time playing top men players, and have access to major open events...but until one places in the top three of the U.S. Open I'll let the data speak for itself. My prediction is that if it ever does happen, she'll be from Asia.......
I've seen the same thing happen to top tier mens players too!
Here's what I think will eventually happen. There will be a major tournament where 10 or 15 (maybe more) of the top tier women will enter. One of them will draw some of the lesser mens players (or other women players) in the first few rounds and win. Then, one of two things could happen. They will lose on the winners side, catch a gear and roll through the losers side, end up in the finals, catch some breaks/rolls/stay in dead stroke and win it all. Or, she will catch a gear on the winners side, find herself in the finals by virtue of playing in less matches, stay in dead stroke/get the rolls/breaks and pull it off. It could happen and probably will someday. It would happen sooner if the number of women entrants were closer to the number of men entrants in a major tournament. Remember, anyone who is touted as a professional poolplayer can "catch a gear" and beat any other player on a given day/match. It is not so hard to think that this might happen for a woman player someday in the next 2 or 3 years IF the men-to-women ratio tightens up. I've certainly seen other sports where the women have made HUGE gains in talent and have closed the gap with male competition.
After saying all the above, I do not think that top tier women poolplayers are on the same level with the top tier mens players. They are inching up the ladder, but still have quite a ways to go. Don't know if they will ever be as good as the men. Certainly won't be in MY lifetime. This is why I say that a woman is going to have to have a few things (dead stroke, rolls, a little luck) go her way to win a major tournament. We'll see!!!
Maniac
You are mixing stuff up...
Generally, yes. women would get better by playing better competition, but that is a general statement involving a class of participants.
That said, it is the individual that would have to take action and there isn't much reward for doing so.
olyella1ball
Registered
fats wore loafers
minnesota fats once said that women don't play pool that well because their boobs get in the way. It's a wonder that a man who can't bend to tie his own shoe laces can make a statement like that!
I think that woman's stance is the major problem
U try to aim proprely with these 8oo8z :yeah:
minnesota fats once said that women don't play pool that well because their boobs get in the way. It's a wonder that a man who can't bend to tie his own shoe laces can make a statement like that!
Did you actually think he was serious?