Cycling UK Forum

Cugel wrote:You keep wanting to believe that there is some natural order that makes all men superior at some things compared to all women.

All men? No of course not.
But the bell curves for physique and size are shifted towards men, nobody in their right mind claims any different. Or perhaps you think that social put downs make women smaller?
Size equals power, that's the way things work in the animal kingdom.

If it were true that women were socially held back then you'd see a shift in performance in favour of males of that I have no doubt and I'd also agree that to a large degree this does in fact happen.
But it would only be a shift and of course some women would buck the trend and be on the far side of the curve and yet where absolute power is key it isn't just a shift it's an avalanche.
Like I mentioned above the worlds best 100m female sprinter is only rated around 10,000th in world ranking. That's 10,000 males in front of her.
Lots of women run, some from a very early age and some are pushed quite hard to do well. If it were just social conditioning you'd see a lot more nipping at the ankles of those 10,000 guys and you just don't. Hundred meter sprints are all about power, most of that distance is covered whilst accelerating and that favours large powerful animals and in bloke terms Bolt is most definitely on the far side of the curve.

It's very simple, the bell curves don't match, they overlap and we can dispute by how much but in simple terms an average bloke is physically larger and more powerful than an average women and no amount of wishing it where otherwise or complaining about fairness will change that.

That said I'm not a big sports person and a lot of the differences in men and women's sports do seem daft.
Nor am I adverse to men and women competing together with the proviso it doesn't simply remove women from sports completely and so far the evidence for some sports is that you'd never see a woman on the start line - certainly not in the 100m sprint.

pete75 wrote:

Vorpal wrote:

Ben@Forest wrote:
But bigger women are encouraged to take up sports that may suit them, shot put, rugby and so on and train for those sports

Really? I'm not huge, but I'm 5'8" and have a build and muscle more suited to playing rugby than tennis, I was not only not given encouragement (sorry about the double negative) growing up, but I was told outright that I wasn't allowed to play because I was a girl. While this was in the USA, rather than the UK, I didn't find that the reception was much better (years later) in the UK.

More muscle than Serena?

If Serena had been playing against the men she would probably not have won anything. Ever. She is a superb female athlete. But against the top men she would be not hitting the ball hard enough to compete.
The very quickest of searches gives me an average first serve speed of 184mph for men and 158mph for women. Women's first serves are about the same speed as men's second serves. There is a difference and if we could wish it away we would.

pwa wrote:I believe top level male tennis players hit the ball harder and faster than their female counterparts. I believe that top level male 100 metre sprinters cover that distance quicker than their female counterparts. Or is it just my Victorian prejudice making me imagine these things? Do you really think, Cugel, that women racing against men would suddenly up their game and become as fast as the men? Or is it that you know the men would still be faster, but it wouldn't matter because the "best person" would win. The "best person" being a man, every time? Can you really mean that?

I mean that it would be best to find out the "truth" of the matter by allowing the contests to occur rather than by employing the self-fulfilling prophecy and "reason" - that women are weaker - for never actually testing the question via reality.

When a sporting event sees a new record, there is often a spurt of attempts, many successful, to match and exceed that record. This occurs not just via physical improvements but via psychological improvements. There is a large body of evidence that suggests it is largely psychology that determines the results of elite sporting events, with physicality a necessary but not sufficient condition for winning. There is a possibility that some women will beat some men via psychological prowess rather than physical prowess - although the latter is a possibility too.

Why prevent mixed gender contests? Do you imagine the women competing will be somehow cowed or reduced if they don't always come first? Winning is but one factor driving those competing in sporting events. If winning were the only factor, the number of competitors would reduce to very few indeed. I competed in many many road races (and other sporting events) yet never got a first. I enjoyed myself immensely, as well as obtaining several other associated benefits from participating in the events.

Cugel, always amazed at the power and tenacity of deeply-embedded cultural assumptions.

We have tested it - the battle of the sexes in tennis pitched a current female tennis champ against a retired male player...

It was a whitewash


OTOH I don’t buy that women can only deal with a three set match.

Cugel wrote:

pwa wrote:I believe top level male tennis players hit the ball harder and faster than their female counterparts. I believe that top level male 100 metre sprinters cover that distance quicker than their female counterparts. Or is it just my Victorian prejudice making me imagine these things? Do you really think, Cugel, that women racing against men would suddenly up their game and become as fast as the men? Or is it that you know the men would still be faster, but it wouldn't matter because the "best person" would win. The "best person" being a man, every time? Can you really mean that?

I mean that it would be best to find out the "truth" of the matter by allowing the contests to occur rather than by employing the self-fulfilling prophecy and "reason" - that women are weaker - for never actually testing the question via reality.

When a sporting event sees a new record, there is often a spurt of attempts, many successful, to match and exceed that record. This occurs not just via physical improvements but via psychological improvements. There is a large body of evidence that suggests it is largely psychology that determines the results of elite sporting events, with physicality a necessary but not sufficient condition for winning. There is a possibility that some women will beat some men via psychological prowess rather than physical prowess - although the latter is a possibility too.

Why prevent mixed gender contests? Do you imagine the women competing will be somehow cowed or reduced if they don't always come first? Winning is but one factor driving those competing in sporting events. If winning were the only factor, the number of competitors would reduce to very few indeed. I competed in many many road races (and other sporting events) yet never got a first. I enjoyed myself immensely, as well as obtaining several other associated benefits from participating in the events.

Cugel, always amazed at the power and tenacity of deeply-embedded cultural assumptions.

Is it your belief that in spite of the current difference in times for men's and women's 100m sprints, the top women would improve to be on a par with the top men if they raced together? I can't prove that wrong, and I would love it if it were true and we did it, but it is an extraordinary assertion that I currently find incredible.

And I don't think the top women would be content with always finishing races behind a bunch of men. Amateurs just out for a nice run would be happy with that, but not top athletes.

[XAP]Bob wrote:We have tested it - the battle of the sexes in tennis pitched a current female tennis champ against a retired male player...

It was a whitewash


OTOH I don’t buy that women can only deal with a three set match.

We all know that a female tennis player can beat a male tennis player. It happens every day. But in top end competition, with players who are as fit and well trained as they can be, the top men will beat the top women. Look at world records for the marathon, swimming or whatever. Find one athletic event where a women's world record is better than the men's. Just one. Lots of events to choose from.

pwa wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:We have tested it - the battle of the sexes in tennis pitched a current female tennis champ against a retired male player...

It was a whitewash


OTOH I don’t buy that women can only deal with a three set match.

We all know that a female tennis player can beat a male tennis player. It happens every day. But in top end competition, with players who are as fit and well trained as they can be, the top men will beat the top women. Look at world records for the marathon, swimming or whatever. Find one athletic event where a women's world record is better than the men's. Just one. Lots of events to choose from.

Yes the twelve hour TT record set by one Beryl Burton in 1967. Not beaten by a man for two or three years.

pete75 wrote:Yes the twelve hour TT record set by one Beryl Burton in 1967. Not beaten by a man for two or three years.

Is it still true? I think the question really referred to current world records.

Mind you once power and strength become less relevant then I'd fully expect women to place nearer or even surpass men.
Some pretty good ultra marathon female runners - not sure if any hold the records for their particular course but if not then that only might be a matter of time.

pete75 wrote:

pwa wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:We have tested it - the battle of the sexes in tennis pitched a current female tennis champ against a retired male player...

It was a whitewash


OTOH I don’t buy that women can only deal with a three set match.

We all know that a female tennis player can beat a male tennis player. It happens every day. But in top end competition, with players who are as fit and well trained as they can be, the top men will beat the top women. Look at world records for the marathon, swimming or whatever. Find one athletic event where a women's world record is better than the men's. Just one. Lots of events to choose from.

Yes the twelve hour TT record set by one Beryl Burton in 1967. Not beaten by a man for two or three years.

Well done Anything current?

Vorpal wrote:

Ben@Forest wrote:But bigger women are encouraged to take up sports that may suit them, shot put, rugby and so on and train for those sports

Really? I'm not huge, but I'm 5'8" and have a build and muscle more suited to playing rugby than tennis, I was not only not given encouragement (sorry about the double negative) growing up, but I was told outright that I wasn't allowed to play because I was a girl. While this was in the USA, rather than the UK, I didn't find that the reception was much better (years later) in the UK.

I obviously can't compare with the US, but at my very bog-standard comprehensive school everyone was instructed in all the track and field events during the summer-term, certainly in each year from 11 years old to 14 years old. So all boys and girls will have jumped hurdles, thrown a discus, done the long jump etc. There were no great facilities, the running track was white painted lines on grass. It was exactly the same at my wife's comprehensive school 170 miles away.

The point is that 90 out of 100 girls would have hated having to do the shot put. 9 might have had some satisfaction at being the best at on their Sports Day but 1 may have really enjoyed it and 15 years later became the British champion. And that's encouragement.

pwa wrote:

pete75 wrote:

pwa wrote:We all know that a female tennis player can beat a male tennis player. It happens every day. But in top end competition, with players who are as fit and well trained as they can be, the top men will beat the top women. Look at world records for the marathon, swimming or whatever. Find one athletic event where a women's world record is better than the men's. Just one. Lots of events to choose from.

Yes the twelve hour TT record set by one Beryl Burton in 1967. Not beaten by a man for two or three years.

Well done Anything current?

You didn't specify current you said any. I've given an example where the top woman beat the top men - of course it's rare but it has happened. To answer your question I'd need to have knowledge of records in every sport. The only way to find out is by research. Rather than ask others what you want to know do the research yourself.

kwackers wrote:

pete75 wrote:Yes the twelve hour TT record set by one Beryl Burton in 1967. Not beaten by a man for two or three years.

Is it still true? I think the question really referred to current world records.

Mind you once power and strength become less relevant then I'd fully expect women to place nearer or even surpass men.
Some pretty good ultra marathon female runners - not sure if any hold the records for their particular course but if not then that only might be a matter of time.

No it said any.

A woman won the Spine Race recently but it is well known that at ultra distances the differences between men and women start to flatten out. It doesn't mean that even at marathon distance women will compete at parity.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... trarunning

pete75 wrote:

pwa wrote:

pete75 wrote:
Yes the twelve hour TT record set by one Beryl Burton in 1967. Not beaten by a man for two or three years.

Well done Anything current?

You didn't specify current you said any. I've given an example where the top woman beat the top men - of course it's rare but it has happened. To answer your question I'd need to have knowledge of records in every sport. The only way to find out is by research. Rather than ask others what you want to know do the research yourself.

It is rare, because in most physical sports women cannot compete against men, so shouldn't have to. In sports where the physicality is external, provided by the gubbins of a race car or the body of a horse, for example, women can be in the arena with men.

One old TT record can quite reasonably be considered as outlier. If you want to prove your point then you really need to show that there's a significant level of equality in performance between the sexes across a wide range of sports. I doubt you'll find that equality in results. You still probably find outliers and some types of events where there is a smaller gap. Ultra distance events are one such category. Where being mentally tough plays more into the result than pure power / physical prowess.

I've played a minority team sport in my local club with and against a woman who had the physique of a highly toned, male athlete. Muscles on muscles with ability too. She represented UK female team (well in the squad at least). Definitely an outlier in physical terms. She wasn't the best player in the club team and even I could compete with her if motivated.