WPA Rules For Transgenders

[Prince H]

Are you saying that an established man with the exact same fargorate as I have will always be a better player? I am very curious because I trust FargoRate to be accurate enough that I would be willing to play any established 549 male or female for even money without fear.

I wouldn't say "always be a better player", but they are not considered "even" in the classic sense of the word.

A 549 male is not the same as a 549 female. The data sets for the two groups do not overlap enough for the rates to be directly comparable...It's just a function of how the calc works. Women who regularly play in men's events (Karren for example) would have scores that are more comparable to a man's of the same level; You would expect the ratings to converge over time as more women play in men's events, but for right now the rates are not directly comparable.

 

[jalapus logan]

I am in favor of mostly open tournaments based on something like Fargo ratings grouping similar ability levels. This should not be difficult to do, nor would gender/political leanings/# of teeth present in one's head, etc. be relevant, imo.

It would be great if there were major and minor leagues, or a masters division or something like that.

But all of this is only wishful thinking, as no entity seems at the ready to finance anything resembling an orderly professional series of events.

 

[Poolplaya9]

This is what I believe.

If that were true, then using those numbers the best player in the world would be a woman 10% of the time. Out of the last ten years, a woman would have been the best player in the world for one year of that time (not necessarily all at once, but it would add up to about a year). If men outnumber women in pool 9 to 1 as in that example you agreed with, a woman will be the best in the world about 10% of the time if women and men are truly innately equal in ability and the disparity is only due to the lopsided number of participants.

But the evidence doesn't support that and in fact very strongly shows that men and women being innately equally skilled for pool is not true at all. Not only is a woman not the best player in the world 10% of the time, a woman has never been the best player in the world even for one minute--ever. In fact a woman has never even been anywhere even remotely close to being the best player in the world--ever. Your belief simply cannot be true no matter how much we wish it were true and would like for it to be true. If it were true we would have had to have seen times where the best player in the world was female, and probably multiple times over time. Hasn't come even remotely close to happening once.

 

[robsnotes4u]

Rhea --- I honestly don't know how your brain works. You are good with big words. You are terrible with logic and posing any type of valid argument. You want to play an established player but you are not established yourself. You are a 550 but only have 199 games in your rating.



First - you need to learn to compare apples vs apples. You aren't established but in your post want to play an established person. What you need to do is play someone that isn't established, as you are classified. You want to play someone that doesn't have a complete games played for their Fargo rating. How about you play Andy Quinn -- his rating is a 40. See how dumb that sounds.



Second - this fargorate, it may or may not be terrific. No one knows cause it hasn't been around long enough and hasn't been tested in live situations as of yet. Let's see after the BCAPL how it holds up. Let's see til the end of the year how it holds up. And then the next 5 years, before we deem it all knowing. No offense to Mike Page who has put the time in.



Third - I am saying that Oscar will play all 5 women on your list. 10 ahead sets on a real table. $10,000 a set minimum. He will play each one until someone wins. Oscar does no drugs. He will play the next woman after he has 12 hours of rest. Back to back to back to back to back. You can have the streaming rights. There is no women's pro tour anymore. They can all come and play Oscar to keep their interest up.

Are you serious? I have been rated for 5 years. It has been tested everyday for at least that time. I would guess Shane and Bergman have been rated that long as I played tourneys that long ago with them.

I will guarantee the data goes back even further.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TATE]

If that were true, then using those numbers the best player in the world would be a woman 10% of the time. Out of the last ten years, a woman would have been the best player in the world for one year of that time (not necessarily all at once, but it would add up to about a year). If men outnumber women in pool 9 to 1 as in that example you agreed with, a woman will be the best in the world about 10% of the time if women and men are truly innately equal in ability and the disparity is only due to the lopsided number of participants.

But the evidence doesn't support that and in fact very strongly shows that men and women being innately equally skilled for pool is not true at all. Not only is a woman not the best player in the world 10% of the time, a woman has never been the best player in the world even for one minute--ever. In fact a woman has never even been anywhere even remotely close to being the best player in the world--ever. Your belief simply cannot be true no matter how much we wish it were true and would like for it to be true. If it were true we would have had to have seen times where the best player in the world was female, and probably multiple times over time. Hasn't come even remotely close to happening once.

That's an interesting way to look at it and valid. I do believe that if there were as many women playing as men, especially if they competed against each other, the ranks at the top would be far more competitive among the sexes. As far as #1 goes, that's a tiny group and the right woman hasn't come forward yet.

 

[watchez]

Are you serious? I have been rated for 5 years. It has been tested everyday for at least that time. I would guess Shane and Bergman have been rated that long as I played tourneys that long ago with them.

I will guarantee the data goes back even further.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't care how long you have been rated. I PERSONALLY have not witnessed the FargoRate in action for more than a year. Until I see it 'working' more, how can I comment if I believe it is valid or not? So to answer your question, yes I am serious. How is that hard to comprehend?

I have posted before how I feel about some of the ratings. Johnny Archer is one cause of his lack of play the past 3 years. Rodney Morris rating going DOWN this year while he has been winning tournaments all over is another. And now I would agree that the women ratings seem to be out of whack as well.... although that might be too strong of a statement but they aren't right.

 

[Poolplaya9]

As far as #1 goes, that's a tiny group and the right woman hasn't come forward yet.

That's my whole point. If women and men were innately equally skilled for pool the right woman would have come forward by now--several times. Just in the last 15 years alone one might be able to name twenty players that could have been considered to be playing the best pool in the world for a period of time during that time, even if were only for a month or two. Not one of them was a woman, even for one minute, much less for even a month. A woman never got even remotely close to being one of them either, even for one minute.

And like somebody else pointed out, there isn't any glee or pride in this reality and in fact if anything like they had stated you almost have even more respect for what the women have accomplished when considering the reality of the disparity in innate abilities. But just because there is no glee in this disparity doesn't mean that we should try to pretend that it doesn't exist and that we should try to play make believe. Smart people deal with truth and facts and reality even when they hate that it because it is what it is, the truth and the reality.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Mr. Bond,
Yeah let's just eliminate all women's sports. That sounds like a great idea. Or we as a society can address this issue civilly and come to a proper conclusion. Unfortunately, I think this has become a subject where the squeaky wheel has gotten the grease.

Transgendered females can now play in the LPGA.

I believe I was being civil.
And this has nothing to do with eliminating women's sports.

If men are indeed superior, then why wouldn't any gender at all be allowed to play in a men's event, since they are clearly no threat? If certain women and transgender etc just " want to be treated like an equal", why not let them play against the men and take their punishment?

Are we bold benevolent chivalrous men just protecting our dainty women from getting their feelings hurt?

 

[Mrdodd72]

Why is there a separate tour for men and women?

There isn't any reason I can see why one gender has an advantage over another.

I believe it has more to do with the number of female vs male players, than it does with any advantage/disadvantage that one gender has over another.

I think, were there an equal numbers of male to female players, there would be little skill level differences between the two. My girl is one of the best players in our league, not just the women, she thumps most of the men, who have been playing much longer than her.

Women in billiards, is good for billiards. It breeds interest from both sexes. Women have historically been removed from competitive endeavors. So the separate tournaments serve a purpose.

Men have an advantage in many physical sports, but I think it's mostly a numbers game with billiards.

 

[Cameron Smith]

That's my whole point. If women and men were innately equally skilled for pool the right woman would have come forward by now--several times. Just in the last 15 years alone one might be able to name twenty players that could have been considered to be playing the best pool in the world for a period of time during that time, even if were only for a month or two. Not one of them was a woman, even for one minute, much less for even a month. A woman never got even remotely close to being one of them either, even for one minute.

And like somebody else pointed out, there isn't any glee or pride in this reality and in fact if anything like they had stated you almost have even more respect for what the women have accomplished when considering the reality of the disparity in innate abilities. But just because there is no glee in this disparity doesn't mean that we should try to pretend that it doesn't exist and that we should try to play make believe. Smart people deal with truth and facts and reality even when they hate that it because it is what it is, the truth and the reality.

But that is assuming of that 10%, the quality of participation is the same. Most women who do play, do so socially I've found. And I have seen even fewer practice on a regular basis. So for arguments sake, if 30% of male participants play as a hobby/serious competition, then you'd like likely see only 15% of females or less doing the same. Of course I don't know the actual numbers, but it's probably not too inaccurate.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that men and women develop separately for the most part. By separating the competition women have fewer opportunities to play against professional level or even top amateur players, which has to have an effect on their development. For example, Siming Chen is the top rated lady in the world according to Fargo, but I can't find a single match on youtube or result against a male opponent. I don't believe it's possible to rise above the standard of the very best players without playing them regularly.

I accept that there are biological differences that may give men an inherent advantage in many things, but I'm still not entirely convinced that the complexity or difficulty of pool/snooker is such that those differences would necessarily come into play.

 

[robsnotes4u]

I don't care how long you have been rated. I PERSONALLY have not witnessed the FargoRate in action for more than a year. Until I see it 'working' more, how can I comment if I believe it is valid or not? So to answer your question, yes I am serious. How is that hard to comprehend?



I have posted before how I feel about some of the ratings. Johnny Archer is one cause of his lack of play the past 3 years. Rodney Morris rating going DOWN this year while he has been winning tournaments all over is another. And now I would agree that the women ratings seem to be out of whack as well.... although that might be too strong of a statement but they aren't right.

Last time you brought Johnny and Rodney did you not look at the matches Mike listed?

It doesn't matter if you only have known for a year. Your statement saying it hasn't been long enough invalidates your whole post when people have been using it for years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poolplaya9]

But that is assuming of that 10%, the quality of participation is the same. Most women who do play, do so socially I've found. And I have seen even fewer practice on a regular basis. So for arguments sake, if 30% of male participants play as a hobby/serious competition, then you'd like likely see only 15% of females or less doing the same. Of course I don't know the actual numbers, but it's probably not too inaccurate.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that men and women develop separately for the most part. By separating the competition women have fewer opportunities to play against professional level or even top amateur players, which has to have an effect on their development. For example, Siming Chen is the top rated lady in the world according to Fargo, but I can't find a single match on youtube or result against a male opponent. I don't believe it's possible to rise above the standard of the very best players without playing them regularly.

I accept that there are biological differences that may give men an inherent advantage in many things, but I'm still not entirely convinced that the complexity or difficulty of pool/snooker is such that those differences would necessarily come into play.

The quality of participation may not be as far off as you suggest, but whatever the disparity actually is in the quality of participation is also likely due in large part to women not tending to stick with things they don't have innate talent for (or interest in) which goes back to those biological differences in men and women. To be clear I do not believe biology is the only factor. In fact I think there are actually a number of different factors, some of which have been mentioned in this thread and some which haven't. But the biggest factor by far, much greater than all the others put together, is biological differences which translate to innate abilities.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I think the quality of participation isn't as far off as you suggest. But whatever the disparity is in the quality of participation is also likely in part because women don't tend to stick with things they don't have innate talent for or interest in which goes back to those biological differences in men and women. To be clear I do not believe biology is the only factor. In fact I think there are actually a number of different factors, some of which have been mentioned in this thread and some which haven't. But the biggest factor by far, much greater than all the others put together, is biological differences which translate to innate abilities.

That level of sticktoitiveness is definitely an important factor. Though pool is a very male centric sub-culture. I have to imagine that there are a lot of barriers that men do not have to deal with. For example, I can practice solo without any worry of being bothered. Women on the other hand often can be pestered, and even if it's only 1 out of 5 sessions it can be enough to deter someone.

Previous experience in sports requiring hand eye coordination will also have a significant impact on their initial learning curve. Would pool likely attract women with previous experience in sports, or women without? Or perhaps there is no bias. Either way that might partially account for a sense of innate ability.

Now I'm also wondering what the average amount of time required to reach each of the major levels are, and compare that between men and women. Also if you control for serious players only (those who compete and practice), what percentage in each group reach C and B level and what percentage never make it out of the D level.

I realize there are no answers to these questions, but my curiosity is peaked!

 

[Poolplaya9]

Now I'm also wondering what the average amount of time required to reach each of the major levels are, and compare that between men and women. Also if you control for serious players only (those who compete and practice), what percentage in each group reach C and B level and what percentage never make it out of the D level.

I realize there are no answers to these questions, but my curiosity is peaked!

I think these are excellent questions. They are along the same line as a question I posed earlier which was that if you removed any and all environmental or other factors for a group of 100 random men and 100 random women (they all have the same desire to learn to play, same coaching, same amount of practice time per day, same amount of gambling or no gambling, environment that was equally friendly to both, etc, etc, etc) then which of the two groups would you expect to have the highest level of average play after any period of time you want to name? Would the best player out of all 200 be equally likely to be a man or a woman, or would it be far more likely to be a man? Would the player rankings show an equal distribution of men and women, or would the bottom half of the rankings have far more women it it? Would the very top of the rankings be exclusively or almost exclusively men? I think the answer to all of these questions is crystal clear.

As far as your suggestion that there are no answers to these questions, there are, but it just hasn't been done as a direct experiment yet, at least not with pool. But the anecdotal evidence is so substantial and so overwhelming that for anyone with an unbiased mind there is zero doubt about what the end result of such an experiment would be. There is a substantial difference in our innate ability that is a result of our different biology we are born with. We don't have to like that fact, but it is still a fact none the less.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I think these are excellent questions. They are along the same line as a question I posed earlier which was that if you removed any and all environmental or other factors for a group of 100 random men and 100 random women (they all have the same desire to learn to play, same coaching, same amount of practice time per day, same amount of gambling or no gambling, environment that was equally friendly to both, etc, etc, etc) then which of the two groups would you expect to have the highest level of average play after any period of time you want to name? Would the best player out of all 200 be equally likely to be a man or a woman, or would it be far more likely to be a man? Would the player rankings show an equal distribution of men and women, or would the bottom half of the rankings have far more women it it? Would the very top of the rankings be exclusively or almost exclusively men? I think the answer to all of these questions is crystal clear.

As far as your suggestion that there are no answers to these questions, there are, but it just hasn't been done as a direct experiment yet, at least not with pool. But the anecdotal evidence is so substantial and so overwhelming that for anyone with an unbiased mind there is zero doubt about what the end result of such an experiment would be. There is a substantial difference in our innate ability that is a result of our different biology we are born with. We don't have to like that fact, but it is still a fact none the less.

Interesting either way. I've always wanted to do some sort of anthropological study on something in the pool world, though this kind of thing would definitely be cross discipline. Sadly I have neither time nor the funding.

The questions you pose are interesting ones and we could definitely learn a lot if such an experiment was undertaken.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

Interesting either way. I've always wanted to do some sort of anthropological study on something in the pool world, though this kind of thing would definitely be cross discipline. Sadly I have neither time nor the funding.

I'll give you five bucks to never mention it again. :smile:

 

[Cameron Smith]

I'll give you five bucks to never mention it again. :smile:

Done!!!

 

[FranCrimi]

Here's some actual reasons to chew on as to why we haven't shown up as world beater players. We're not as selfish as you guys, most of us don't aspire to be the best in something that won't pay the bills, and we don't like having to compete against big babies who whine, cry and carry on during a match. We also don't like the violence and woofing that goes along with gambling.

 

[one stroke]

Here's some actual reasons to chew on as to why we haven't shown up as world beater players. We're not as selfish as you guys, most of us don't aspire to be the best in something that won't pay the bills, and we don't like having to compete against big babies who whine, cry and carry on during a match. We also don't like the violence and woofing that goes along with gambling.

Lmfao , that's pretty comical ,,


1

 

[us820]

Here's some actual EXCUSES to chew on as to why we haven't shown up as world beater players. We're not as selfish as you guys, most of us don't aspire to be the best in something that won't pay the bills, and we don't like having to compete against big babies who whine, cry and carry on during a match. We also don't like the violence and woofing that goes along with gambling.

Fixed for accuracy