Women? Why can't they hang with the men?

[Cameron Smith]

If you are referring to Annika Soremstam and (for god's sake) Michelle Wie, they can't even come close to competing with the men. Each and every week 156 players tee it up on the PGA Tour. Sorenstam and Wie can't beat any of them on a regular basis. Sure the might come in 110th and beat 40-50 players in a given week. But, in order to do so, they have to play at a very high level and they guys they do beat for 2 days have to have off days. Otherwise, they finish in the bottom 10 each and every week. As far as Michelle Wie playing in all of these different mens tourneys, I think is a shame that she is taking up someones spot that is trying to earn a living. Every time she tees it up, someone that has partial exemption status or sponsor exemption loses out on playing in that tournament. This is not the upper tier of players, but the ones that teeter on the top 125 and struggle to stay on tour and make a living. I do not think women should be allowed to compete in mens events in any sport, PERIOD. Men can't play in womens events, so why is it a double standard. It just makes no sense.

Annika only made one attempt to play on the PGA tour. One sample is not enough to make an accurate judgement as to what she can or can not do. Michelle Wie, has not played with the men very often but she did very well in the mens us amatures, she will win it one day. But for god sakes shes only 17 giver her a break.

Finally the LPGA is gender specific, the PGA is not. some of the mens major events (the Masters) specifiy no women, but for the most part the PGA tour is not a gender specific tour. Even so do you want to play on the Ladies tour.

 

[Jaden]

A lot of things have been discussed but a simple mechanical factor hasn't unless I overlooked it in my quick scan of the posts. Simply put, the average woman is smaller than the average man. Obviously, they play on the same size and height tables when competing together.

When standing the average man has a better overhead perspective of the table. He also has a reach advantage which means that in the course of a match there are fewer awkward shots that he has to attempt.

Aside from any other consideration, taller pool players with longer reach have innate advantages. Shorter players can overcome these advantages in some cases but all else being equal the taller player will win.

Hu

Tell that to Santos Sambajon, that guy is like 4' something or any number of other philipinos.....

 

[ShootingArts]

How tall are the Philipino Women?

Tell that to Santos Sambajon, that guy is like 4' something or any number of other philipinos.....

Jaden,

It still holds true that a person with more height and reach has basic advantages. Simple facts, the taller person has a better perspective for judging angles and has fewer awkward shots. Even if a person sets up their own runs perfectly they still have to respond to leaves by other people.

The best pool player I have ever seen was of average height. He overcame that disadvantage. That doesn't change the fact that it is a disadvantage to have less height and reach.

Hu

 

[Andrew Manning]

I think it all has to do with who your competition is. My uncle plays pool all day sometimes. In rural central Virginia. Against rural people who only ever play when they come over to his house. And who couldn't run four stop shots to save their lives. And who literally don't know that hitting the cueball in different places makes it do different things. He always wins. He never gets any better.

How high a level you can compete at has everything to do with who you have spent your time competing against. At the top pro level, who wins has little to do with talent, or skill, or knowlegde. It has everything to do with having learned how to win; having competitive instinct and competitive edge. You can take almost any shot out of a pro 9-ball match and line up 20 pros, and they CAN ALL make the shot. They all have the ability. It's just a question of when it's really on the line, which of them WILL make the shot.

I think if you did away with the women's tour and put all those women on the men's tour, their level of play would skyrocket from where it is right now. They play as well as the other women on tour play, for the most part. They want to be better than the other women, but you don't get better without playing better players. If I spent all my time playing threes in my APA league, I'd still be a three. I try to play 6's and 7's whenever there's one available to shoot with me, and I've improved way faster than anyone who joined the league around the time I did.

I think the physiological differences, although there are obviously differences, are not necessarily relevant to the game of pool. People talk about "power", but in pool that doesn't mean strength. It means technique, having smooth acceleration through contact, keeping loose, fluid muscles through the stroke. It's not about physiology.

-Andrew

 

[Cornerman]

Jaden,

It still holds true that a person with more height and reach has basic advantages. Simple facts, the taller person has a better perspective for judging angles and has fewer awkward shots. Even if a person sets up their own runs perfectly they still have to respond to leaves by other people.

The best pool player I have ever seen was of average height. He overcame that disadvantage. That doesn't change the fact that it is a disadvantage to have less height and reach.

Hu

By the same token, one could easily say that a tall person would be at a disadvantage because the bending stance is more strenuous. I know when I'm on a table that's slightly low (either at or slightly below the low spec.), by back can't handle it for too long.

I think your example of the best person you've ever seen is a good example as well. How you consider it "overcoming a disadvantage" is an odd viewpoint, in my book. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of us can say that the best player they ever saw was relatively not tall.

The best player to ever come out of my area is shorter than I am. And I'm short. The best player on the planet currently is Efren Reyes. Not tall. Best player ever? Mosconi? Short.

Dave Bollman was probably the best tall player. I think he's the anomaly, not the norm.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

I think it all has to do with who your competition is.

This is false. That is, it is a good reason, but it isn't "all" the reason. As I said previously, there are many reasons, all combined .

I think the physiological differences, although there are obviously differences, are not necessarily relevant to the game of pool. People talk about "power", but in pool that doesn't mean strength. It means technique, having smooth acceleration through contact, keeping loose, fluid muscles through the stroke. It's not about physiology.

-Andrew

How can you put the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool and then say it's not about physiology? Of course physiology comes into play. It's a physical game. It's physical coordination of energy transfer.

Again, as I said previously, the absolute worst thing we can do is to simply dismiss any of the legitimate reasons. Once anyone dismisses a leigitimate reason, then arguments take place. And it's needless. All the reasons are valid. Not one is invalid, and not one is the "only reason." To think otherwise is gravely short-sighted.


Fred <~~~ And smooth acceleration through contact is an impossibility.

 

[Jimmy M.]

The paper today says that Deb Remmerde of Northwestern College just broke the consecutive free throw record for all organized basketball with 133 in a row. The previous record was 126.

Now stick her up in a one-on-one against any male college starter. Not to discredit her achievement, but the fact that she broke the consecutive free throw record doesn't mean that she plays basketball at the same level that the men do.

I don't know much on this topic, but I have heard that women are generally better marksmen (markswomen?) than men. Perhaps whatever aptitude they have that allows them to be better marksmen comes into play with something like free throws as well. Just out of curiousity, since I really don't follow the LPGA, how do the women compare to the men in putting? I ask because I think it would take a similar skill.

 

[Andrew Manning]

This is false. That is, it is a good reason, but it isn't "all" the reason. As I said previously, there are many reasons, all combined .

How can you put the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool and then say it's not about physiology? Of course physiology comes into play. It's a physical game. It's physical coordination of energy transfer.

Again, as I said previously, the absolute worst thing we can do is to simply dismiss any of the legitimate reasons. Once anyone dismisses a leigitimate reason, then arguments take place. And it's needless. All the reasons are valid. Not one is invalid, and not one is the "only reason." To think otherwise is gravely short-sighted.


Fred <~~~ And smooth acceleration through contact is an impossibility.

To address your points:

I didn't mean it was the only reason, I meant I think it's the most important reason.

By describing what I consider the definition of "power" pool, what I meant to communicate is that physical strength, size, and speed (which I consider to be physiological differences between men and women) do not factor heavily into pool "power", and thus I don't think there's an inherent reason why women couldn't have as much power as men. What you just called "the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool" isn't physiology at all, is the point I was trying to make.

-Andrew
And by "smooth acceleration through contact" I meant "smooth acceleration up to the point of contact, including an even application of force during contact". But that's 16 words of description, and "through contact" is an easy way to simplify that concept, and thinking about accelerating "through contact" is the easiest way to achieve it.

 

[ShootingArts]

comparison

Fred,

The comparison is simple. Tall people can bend lower. Short people can't stretch to achieve that extra reach and are unlikely to tote a foot stool with them to gain the better viewing angle on every shot which involves some difficulty. Height and reach are real advantages.

As I said in an earlier post, all else being equal a taller player has an advantage due to greater reach. The wider shoulders that men typically have are an advantage also as they add to reach. Greater reach means fewer shots that are awkward to shoot.

Not too surprising that some short and medium height people excel on a pool table. There are many activities where the size disadvantage is much more difficult or impossible to overcome so those desiring to compete find an arena that they can be competitive in.

Hu

By the same token, one could easily say that a tall person would be at a disadvantage because the bending stance is more strenuous. I know when I'm on a table that's slightly low (either at or slightly below the low spec.), by back can't handle it for too long.

I think your example of the best person you've ever seen is a good example as well. How you consider it "overcoming a disadvantage" is an odd viewpoint, in my book. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of us can say that the best player they ever saw was relatively not tall.

The best player to ever come out of my area is shorter than I am. And I'm short. The best player on the planet currently is Efren Reyes. Not tall. Best player ever? Mosconi? Short.

Dave Bollman was probably the best tall player. I think he's the anomaly, not the norm.

Fred

 

[jsp]

As I said in an earlier post, all else being equal a taller player has an advantage due to greater reach. The wider shoulders that men typically have are an advantage also as they add to reach. Greater reach means fewer shots that are awkward to shoot.

Hmm...I don't think this argument holds water. With your logic, you can argue that the best pool players in the world (just think of the men) would be taller than average, since they would have the advantage. However, look at the players that are dominating the pool world today. They are all on the short side. Almost all of the Filipino and Taiwanese players are shorter than your average American male. The only pool superstar that is above average height that I can think of is Archer (Owen is tall, but I wouldn't label him a superstar yet). The data doesn't support your claims.

 

[pokerhammer]

Annika only made one attempt to play on the PGA tour. One sample is not enough to make an accurate judgement as to what she can or can not do. Michelle Wie, has not played with the men very often but she did very well in the mens us amatures, she will win it one day. But for god sakes shes only 17 giver her a break.

Finally the LPGA is gender specific, the PGA is not. some of the mens major events (the Masters) specifiy no women, but for the most part the PGA tour is not a gender specific tour. Even so do you want to play on the Ladies tour.

I would compete very favorably on the LPGA. I use to play pro golf on some of the mini tours before I started playing cards. I just think its bullshit that Wie, and she has played in about 5-6 mens events now and failed to make a cut, continues to get sponsors exemptions to play in MENS events. Hell, she hasn't even won an LPGA event yet! Stay with your gender.

 

[Cornerman]

The only pool superstar that is above average height that I can think of is Archer (.

And Archer isn't as tall as he might look on TV.

Fred

 

[jay helfert]

OK, Jay, I concede your points. I will still maintain there are some sports that they can't physically catch up. They have shown that women are incapable of developing equal upper body strength to men and that would make a difference in many sports. My very first post in this thread, states that I believe the discrepancy in pool to be mostly a social issue. And I have been paying attention a little, dad.

I like you, you're officially adopted. And I agree about social issues affecting woman players for years, with a few exceptions.
I have heard all the arguments before about strength, mental make up, physical and physiological differences etc. I just don't totally buy into it.
I would ask why is it that some guys who are gifted physically (bigger, stronger) fall by the wayside and lesser athletes (smaller and not as strong) make it to the top in pro sports? I'm sure one can say it is about determination and drive. Not taking into account career ending injuries. What I am saying that the lack of upper body strength does not necessarily prohibit a women from participating in major sports if she has the drive and determiniation to make it.
What I personally believe is that certain women do have all the physical and mental abilities to excell at sports, and in particular Pool, which doesn't take nearly as much strength or speed to play well. I would not be surprised to see a woman World Champion some day and perhaps sooner than we think. Whoever thought a 16 year old kid would beat all the great players and win last year? Not me, that's for sure.

 

[jay helfert]

Maybe it's a male's innate confidence, the swagger, the 'cock of the walk', while we females are just 'chicken'!

Confidence has a lot to do with it in all sporting endeavors. But nothing instills confidence like winning. I suspect Karen Corr is not lacking in confidence when she plays a man. By now she must know she has a chance against anyone. And a good one against most.
When other women see her succeeding against the guys, that may cause them to have a little more confidence as well.

 

[Cornerman]

To address your points:

I didn't mean it was the only reason, I meant I think it's the most important reason.

Okay. I disagree. To think any single reason is the most important, IMO, is short-sighted. You've read the other reasons. Why would any one reason be more important than the others?

By describing what I consider the definition of "power" pool, what I meant to communicate is that physical strength, size, and speed (which I consider to be physiological differences between men and women) do not factor heavily into pool "power", and thus I don't think there's an inherent reason why women couldn't have as much power as men. What you just called "the definition of physiology as it pertains to pool" isn't physiology at all, is the point I was trying to make.

It's not whether they can handle of those shots that are in question, but with what degree of acuracy and effort. I think it's safe to say that the average man can handle the higher power shots more readily. If a shot requires power, and a man inherently has more power, then by reason of effort/results ratio, a man would have an inherent advantage on those shots .It is a physical difference. Subtle, yes, but still a difference that, IMO, a man has an advantage.

This is where I have to put that seemingly haughty note that says that I don't think you've given the physical aspect enough thought, and that responding now shouldn't be a priority. Your responses revolve around the same slippery slope of others who quickly dismissed the physical differences. I apologize since it will read condescendingly, but I don't know any other way to say it. This question that comes up way too often. And I think your reasoning is wrong. If we concede that the game has physical aspect, then one of the genders must have an inherent physical advantage. Balance, upper body strength, lower body strength, back muscles, no breasts, the list of differences that have a direct affect on playing pool is too long.

And by "smooth acceleration through contact" I meant "smooth acceleration up to the point of contact, including an even application of force during contact". But that's 16 words of description, and "through contact" is an easy way to simplify that concept, and thinking about accelerating "through contact" is the easiest way to achieve it.

This is a completely different discussion, but the cue is actually decelerating to the point of constant velocity when it contacts the cueball. Nevertheless, it's the coordination of that motion that makes this game a "physical game." And the power strokes in combination with the coordination of the body parts to stroke in line, the average man has shown superiority.

And again, the physiological difference is just one of several reasons which should include socio-cultural, participatory numbers, and competition. You cannot discount the physical differences. The effort should be to define "power" as it applies to pool, not how it doesn't apply to pool.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

I
I would ask why is it that some guys who are gifted physically (bigger, stronger) fall by the wayside and lesser athletes (smaller and not as strong) make it to the top in pro sports? .

I can't say it enough. There isn't just one reason why a person excels or fails, but a combination of many factors.

For any physical endeavor, a person if s/he is going to excel must have:

-innate physical ability
-uncanny capacity to learn
-willingness to improve
-the means to improve
-time
-energy
-over-the-top drive and determination
-an arena to challenge the skills


She or he doesn't have to be/have the best at all or any of these, but she or he must have a good amount at all of them. Larry Bird is the prime example. A gifted athlete, but nowhere near as natural as, say, Dominique Wilkins. But Larry's drive is unmatched. And his willingness to improve is legendary. So, Larry gets a nod above Dominique.

If there are things that deter any of these, then excellence will be limited. Such is the case of socio-cultural effects on women in pool/billiards. Socio-cultural history has detered at least two or three of the above. But, again, those are just two or three pieces of the entire puzzle.

So, of course one physically gifted person may not excel like a lesser counterpart. Physicality is just one piece of the puzzle. And if the more gifted athlete is lacking in drive, or the means to improve, then he'll not excel as far as the lesser athlete that had everything else.

The worst NBA player is still the best natural athlete his local county has ever seen. If all else were equal, than physical ability will be left standing as the major piece of the puzzle (like the bench sitter in the NBA).

Fred

 

[jay helfert]

A lot of things have been discussed but a simple mechanical factor hasn't unless I overlooked it in my quick scan of the posts. Simply put, the average woman is smaller than the average man. Obviously, they play on the same size and height tables when competing together.

When standing the average man has a better overhead perspective of the table. He also has a reach advantage which means that in the course of a match there are fewer awkward shots that he has to attempt.

Aside from any other consideration, taller pool players with longer reach have innate advantages. Shorter players can overcome these advantages in some cases but all else being equal the taller player will win.

Hu

I totally disagree with you here. Yes, there are advantages when it comes to reach, but there are other advantages a short player has. Much easier to get down on the balls and get in a good solid stance. And short players usually are able to stand for long periods of time. Actually the height of the table (around 30") lends itself to play by shorter individuals.
Examples that come to mind include Alex P., Jose P., Marcus C., Santos S., Rafael M., Tommy Kennedy and Boston Shorty. All 5'4" or less in height.
Many other great players, including Mosconi were in the 5'6" to 5'8" range.
Most of the above learned early on to play with either hand, thus negating the problem of reach. And they also excell when using the bridge.
If you argument against women players has to do with height, I don't agree.

 

[ShootingArts]

pool players

Other things than height are factors and as I mentioned the lack of size and strength can lead people into sports such as pool where these factors are less important than in other sports. Comparatively more smaller players playing the game while larger more athletic people are focused on other activities could explain the number of smaller players that are successful in pool.

Few Americans decide early in life that they want to become pool players and focus almost entirely on that. Much easier to focus on pool when it seems like the way to a better life as the Filipinos see it. Nor do we have national development programs like some of the Asian countries use.

Assuming two equal players, the player with fewer shots that are awkward to shoot will win over time. This favors the player with greater reach. The larger the table the more advantage the person with more reach has too.

Hu

Hmm...I don't think this argument holds water. With your logic, you can argue that the best pool players in the world (just think of the men) would be taller than average, since they would have the advantage. However, look at the players that are dominating the pool world today. They are all on the short side. Almost all of the Filipino and Taiwanese players are shorter than your average American male. The only pool superstar that is above average height that I can think of is Archer (Owen is tall, but I wouldn't label him a superstar yet). The data doesn't support your claims.

 

[jay helfert]

I think it all has to do with who your competition is. My uncle plays pool all day sometimes. In rural central Virginia. Against rural people who only ever play when they come over to his house. And who couldn't run four stop shots to save their lives. And who literally don't know that hitting the cueball in different places makes it do different things. He always wins. He never gets any better.

How high a level you can compete at has everything to do with who you have spent your time competing against. At the top pro level, who wins has little to do with talent, or skill, or knowlegde. It has everything to do with having learned how to win; having competitive instinct and competitive edge. You can take almost any shot out of a pro 9-ball match and line up 20 pros, and they CAN ALL make the shot. They all have the ability. It's just a question of when it's really on the line, which of them WILL make the shot.

I think if you did away with the women's tour and put all those women on the men's tour, their level of play would skyrocket from where it is right now. They play as well as the other women on tour play, for the most part. They want to be better than the other women, but you don't get better without playing better players. If I spent all my time playing threes in my APA league, I'd still be a three. I try to play 6's and 7's whenever there's one available to shoot with me, and I've improved way faster than anyone who joined the league around the time I did.

I think the physiological differences, although there are obviously differences, are not necessarily relevant to the game of pool. People talk about "power", but in pool that doesn't mean strength. It means technique, having smooth acceleration through contact, keeping loose, fluid muscles through the stroke. It's not about physiology.

-Andrew

Thank you Andrew, point well taken.

 

[jay helfert]

Now stick her up in a one-on-one against any male college starter. Not to discredit her achievement, but the fact that she broke the consecutive free throw record doesn't mean that she plays basketball at the same level that the men do.

I don't know much on this topic, but I have heard that women are generally better marksmen (markswomen?) than men. Perhaps whatever aptitude they have that allows them to be better marksmen comes into play with something like free throws as well. Just out of curiousity, since I really don't follow the LPGA, how do the women compare to the men in putting? I ask because I think it would take a similar skill.

I've watched the LPGA tourneys for years. Many women have awesome short games. Put all the pros on a Par 3 course and you might be surprised at the results.