Men vs. Women
-
sleeper
Tobias Fünke;739995 wrote:You can take track measurements and compare them to high school boys all of the time. Is that comparison fair? My sister was a state champ and I crushed what she did in the 8th grade.
Terrible comparison. Of course men are better athletes and more gifted when it comes to sports, but I think its delusional to think that boys can beat grown women. -
Manhattan Buckeye"These women in the WNBA are professionals and often are the cream of the crop of every woman who's ever touched a basketball."
Have you watched a WNBA game or know anything about the economics of the game? Their pay is shit. Unless you are a superstar and get endorsements you are better off marrying some dude out of college or going to medical school. And even then the top players still have to play overseas to supplement their income. This isn't the NBA by any stretch of the imagination where if you make a team you are set for life. On the average WNBA roster you'll find more than a few women that wouldn't make varsity at a lot of Ohio HS boys programs....they do it because they have the right chromosomes and because they need the paltry salary, and still have to work so much that they couldn't maintain another job outside of basketball. -
sleeper
I fail to see how the economics of the game have anything to do with the talent of professional women. Are there some players on high school boys team that could compete with PROFESSIONAL women? Yes. But its delusional to think that just because you're tall, athletic, black, and male that you can roll over women who spend their life putting a ball through a hoop and have the strength of a grown woman.Manhattan Buckeye;740040 wrote:"These women in the WNBA are professionals and often are the cream of the crop of every woman who's ever touched a basketball."
Have you watched a WNBA game or know anything about the economics of the game? Their pay is shit. Unless you are a superstar and get endorsements you are better off marrying some dude out of college or going to medical school. And even then the top players still have to play overseas to supplement their income. This isn't the NBA by any stretch of the imagination where if you make a team you are set for life. On the average WNBA roster you'll find more than a few women that wouldn't make varsity at a lot of Ohio HS boys programs....they do it because they have the right chromosomes and because they need the paltry salary, and still have to work so much that they couldn't maintain another job outside of basketball. -
Manhattan Buckeye"I fail to see how the economics of the game have anything to do with the talent of professional women."
Well, the obvious reason is that many of the talented women have better options than to take a $36,000 salary for their efforts. The WNBA is definitely not the highest level of women's basketball, because they can't pay their talent. If you had to choose between $36,000 and travelling for the season and foregoing other employment options and well, almost anything else, many talented women don't even think about the WNBA. That is why the bottom of their roster is so horrible. Look at the average roster. -
sleeper
Yeah, I get that the WNBA is not the highest paying, but we're talking TWO levels below them on freaking high school teams. HIGH SCHOOL! Half the kids on high school teams are barely good enough to play in high school much less compete with professional women.Manhattan Buckeye;740048 wrote:"I fail to see how the economics of the game have anything to do with the talent of professional women."
Well, the obvious reason is that many of the talented women have better options than to take a $36,000 salary for their efforts. The WNBA is definitely not the highest level of women's basketball, because they can't pay their talent. If you had to choose between $36,000 and travelling for the season and foregoing other employment options and well, almost anything else, many talented women don't even think about the WNBA. That is why the bottom of their roster is so horrible. Look at the average roster. -
OneBuckeye
Played in pickup basketball games with Katie Smith when I went to OSU she played for the Detroit Shock at the time (they won the title a few times I think). She could play and shoot the lights out. She didn't do to bad geting to the basket either, but she got rejected more than once when she took it to the hole. I think the WNBA team would win 99% of the time vs the high school team you listed. They would shoot 45% or better from three all day long. Now if they played vs a D1 college team I think it would be much closer. But the pros are pros for a reason even in the WNBA. -
sherm03
Manhattan Buckeye;739998 wrote:"And for the record, I think a WNBA team beats every Ohio team you listed there without any issue. And beats the other teams 8 or 9 out of 10 times. "
I played against Rick Edwards at Chesapeake since we were 12 years old (I swear he was 6'6" even back then). He ended up at the University of Richmond, put on about 30 lbs of muscle and turned into a very, very solid power forward at a decent mid-major. He might have topped out at 6'8" (was probably listed at 6'9") and maybe 245 lbs. He was just ok in HS, a little awkward given that he grew so tall so quickly, but I can't imagine any woman even beginning to stop him when he filled out and got used to his size. He would average 40 points a game in the WNBA, he'd be Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain combined.
He was maybe the 4th best player for 'Peake back in the day - so yeah, I think a relatively small Ohio school would match up very well. If I were coaching the women's team I'd completely change the line-up, their best chance would be to play the quickest players regardless of their size. I think a team of the best 5 point guards in the WNBA would do much better against a men's team than the starting lineup of the WNBA champion.
OK...so you just pointed out that Edwards was awkward in high school because he grew so tall so quickly. That's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about when he went to college and put on 30 pounds, and got older/more mature/better (which is why I said that if we were talking about mid-major men's college teams I would have a different stance). But IN HIGH SCHOOL...even the best boy's team is going to lose to a WNBA team 9/10 times. -
Manhattan Buckeye" But IN HIGH SCHOOL...even the best boy's team is going to lose to a WNBA team 9/10 times."
Uh, no. As an example Huntington High with Patterson/Mayo would pick their score against any WNBA team. Who the hell would stop either of those guys? I'm not talking about guys that play for a crappy high school team - and Ohio has a lot of crappy teams, I'm talking about real teams. Chesapeake, Ironton and ' Burg are real teams year in and out. They'd average 3 inches, 30 lbs and a lot more strength and quickness at every position. If you look at WNBA team many of them wouldn't make the varsity squad at programs that are actually good. If your HS team sucked, well, maybe they could play for them.
This isn't a knock against women's basketball, it really isn't. But it isn't the same sport. There is a reason why at Xavier your friends were the scout team, and it wasn't because they were worse than the competition. -
like_that
I remember going on a few college visits for wrestling, and it seemed every time I toured the schools' weight room, the women's bball team was in there. Each time the highest amount of weight I saw being benched was 50 lbs. Yeah I think the good boys HS teams in Ohio would beat a WNBA team. -
dwccrew
What they get paid has nothing to do with their talent levels. There is no other option for them to attain a higher level of play other than the WNBA. Since there is no demand to watch the WNBA, these women play for meager salaries. Yes, they probably could quit basketball after college and be more successful at another career, but some people have a passion and choose to make sacrifices to achieve their goals and dreams. For many WNBA players, it is playing in the WNBA. Your argument has no merit. Economics of the game have nothing to do with talent. Otherwise I'd bring up how high school players don't get paid at all. Doesn't mean they aren't talented.Manhattan Buckeye;740040 wrote:"These women in the WNBA are professionals and often are the cream of the crop of every woman who's ever touched a basketball."
Have you watched a WNBA game or know anything about the economics of the game? Their pay is shit. Unless you are a superstar and get endorsements you are better off marrying some dude out of college or going to medical school. And even then the top players still have to play overseas to supplement their income. This isn't the NBA by any stretch of the imagination where if you make a team you are set for life. On the average WNBA roster you'll find more than a few women that wouldn't make varsity at a lot of Ohio HS boys programs....they do it because they have the right chromosomes and because they need the paltry salary, and still have to work so much that they couldn't maintain another job outside of basketball.
Manhattan Buckeye;740048 wrote:"I fail to see how the economics of the game have anything to do with the talent of professional women."
Well, the obvious reason is that many of the talented women have better options than to take a $36,000 salary for their efforts. The WNBA is definitely not the highest level of women's basketball, because they can't pay their talent. If you had to choose between $36,000 and travelling for the season and foregoing other employment options and well, almost anything else, many talented women don't even think about the WNBA. That is why the bottom of their roster is so horrible. Look at the average roster.
What?????? We're talking basketball talent. Where else will these women get paid better for their basketball talent? As I stated above, they may forgoe better paying jobs to achieve their dream of playing in the WNBA. -
Zoltandwccrew;740188 wrote:What they get paid has nothing to do with their talent levels. There is no other option for them to attain a higher level of play other than the WNBA. Since there is no demand to watch the WNBA, these women play for meager salaries. Yes, they probably could quit basketball after college and be more successful at another career, but some people have a passion and choose to make sacrifices to achieve their goals and dreams. For many WNBA players, it is playing in the WNBA. Your argument has no merit. Economics of the game have nothing to do with talent. Otherwise I'd bring up how high school players don't get paid at all. Doesn't mean they aren't talented.
What?????? We're talking basketball talent. Where else will these women get paid better for their basketball talent? As I stated above, they may forgoe better paying jobs to achieve their dream of playing in the WNBA.
The argument is about the bench. He is claiming the best woman basketball players are not always in the WNBA because some of them do forgo playing for a different path. For instance, if woman A is better than woman B, but woman A is not willing to take 25K to sit on the WNBA bench, and Woman B is. The quality of play is affected. -
Con_Alma
What they get paid has a direct influence on whether or not the most talented will play in the league at all. If you pay the crap the most talented will join the workforce and forgo the WNBA all together.dwccrew;740188 wrote:What they get paid has nothing to do with their talent levels.....
Edit....Sorry Zoltan....didn't get to your post yet. You explained it well. -
Hb31187
A good D1 high school boys team couldnt stay within 30 points of a WNBA team? LOL we're serious with this shit? -
fan_from_texaslike_that;740186 wrote:I remember going on a few college visits for wrestling, and it seemed every time I toured the schools' weight room, the women's bball team was in there. Each time the highest amount of weight I saw being benched was 50 lbs. Yeah I think the good boys HS teams in Ohio would beat a WNBA team.
I call BS on that. We had girls in our high school who benched 95. I don't believe for a second that college girls could barely bench the bar. Hell, Mrs. FFT (who is not an athlete) benched 75 for her 3x10s after a month or two of working out. -
like_that
fan_from_texas;740683 wrote:I call BS on that. We had girls in our high school who benched 95. I don't believe for a second that college girls could barely bench the bar. Hell, Mrs. FFT (who is not an athlete) benched 75 for her 3x10s after a month or two of working out.
Well, I should be fair, I wasn't counting the bar. I was just counting 25's on each side. Call BS all you want, but I never saw a girl bench over 25's on each side. That was just through my visits, so maybe not all programs are like that, but I am willing to bet its close. HS boys you have guys benching at least 45s on each side. -
tk421
Hb31187;740572 wrote:A good D1 high school boys team couldnt stay within 30 points of a WNBA team? LOL we're serious with this shit?
Yeah, I seriously didn't think anyone would ever make that statement. To think a championship high school basketball team from a school with a couple thousands students couldn't beat an WNBA team is crazy. I don't know what he's talking about, but these guys have obviously never seen those teams that I listed play. Just take a look at these rosters and try and convince me that these teams wouldn't beat the WNBA champs.
http://irontonclassic.com/roster2.htm
Even D III Chesapeake has 6'2'' 6'2'' 6'3'' 6'4'' and 6'7''. -
O-Trap
Okay, let's compare HS boys to professional women. Easiest comparison for that argument alone would be sports that highlight individual achievement. How about Track & Field?
Let's compare boys OHSAA records (high school records restricted to one state in our country) to women's world records. Advantage will be in bold.
100m:
OHSAA Boys: Brandon Saine, Piqua (10.38)
Women's World Record: Florence Griffith-Joyner, USA (10.49)
200m:
OHSAA Boys: Chris Nelloms, Dayton Dunbar (20.47) - (almost a second faster in a sprint)
Women's World Record: Florence Griffith-Joyner, USA (21.34)
400m:
OHSAA Boys: Chris Nelloms, Dayton Dunbar (45.59) - (TWO seconds faster in a sprint)
Women's World Record: Marita Koch, East Germany (47.60)
800m:
OHSAA Boys: Marc Sylvester, Cleveland St. Ignatius (1:48.93)
Women's World Record: Jarmila Kratochvilova, Czech Republic (1:53.28)
The Mile:
OHSAA Boys: Bob Kennedy, Westerville North (4:05.13)
Women's World Record: Svetlana Masterkova, Russia (4:12.56)
High Jump:
OHSAA Boys: Erik Kynard, Jr., Toledo Rogers (7' 2.75")
Women's World Record: Stefka Kostadinova, Bulgaria (6' 10.28")
Long Jump:
OHSAA Boys: Ra’Mon Johnson, Warrensville Heights (25' 9.5")
Women's World Record: Galina Chistyakova, Soviet Union (24' 8.06")
Discus:
OHSAA Boys: Charles Moye Jr., Akron Ellet (204' 5")
Women's World Record: Gabriele Reinsch, East Germany (252' 0")
Shotput:
OHSAA Boys: Dustin Brode, Canfield (71' 7.5")
Women's World Record: Natalya Lisovskaya, Soviet Union (74' 3")
So, historically, except for field events from the scary Communist women of the 1980s, the best of the Ohio high school boys have been better than the best female athletes in the world at their respective events.
I don't know, guys. I'm not saying that the team mentioned could beat the WNBA teach (never saw that HS team play), but I wouldn't put it past SOME high school teams being able to beat them. -
tk421
Also, on the discus and shot put records, the women's weight is lower than the men's. So, that would be the reason they have the best distances.
-
Pick6
tk421;740726 wrote:Also, on the discus and shot put records, the women's weight is lower than the men's. So, that would be the reason they have the best distances.
was going to say the same thing -
Red_Skin_Pride
sherm03;739844 wrote:I didn't say you had to agree with it. That's why I said agree to disagree.
And for the record, I think a WNBA team beats every Ohio team you listed there without any issue. And beats the other teams 8 or 9 out of 10 times.
Agree with this. I didn't see any teams in Ohio this year (and I saw a TON) that would beat Baylor's women, let alone a professional women's team. And I think that's part of the problem of the stigma that surrounds women's basketball at higher levels...people think that because they're women, it'd be easy to beat them...for some reason, apparently just because men can dunk (which comprises a whopping 8% of total baskets made in men's basketball). I'd love to see some of you guys on here go against Maya Moore or Brittany Griner and have her pack your lunch for about a half an hour and then say your HS team would beat a WNBA team, who has players at every position that are talented like them. I think there are a FEW D.I high school teams in Ohio, maybe 1 or 2 every decade, that would win 50% of the time against a team like Uconn. But most people don't realize that the women's game compensates for their slightly lower physical ablility by honing other aspects of their game. For example, a WNBA team would make a high school team look sick with their passing? Why? because most super athletic teams are far less disciplined than teams with less athletic ability that has to find a way to score points, move the ball, and defend without the most athletic players. A women's team can't just lob the ball up for a dunk, or pin the ball against the backboard for a block on a fast break, so they adjust and find other ways to execute offense and defense. A perfect example on the men's is Princeton, or even a team like Butler.
So when you take the top level of talent women's basketball has to offer and add in the fact that the women's game on a whole is a lot more disciplined and efficient that a lower level (high school) boys basketball team, to think that a D.III HS would beat them is asanine.
My HS had two of the best players we've ever had in the same class (not related). One was a boy, one was a girl. Both went on to play college basketball, and he, nor any of the boys on our basketball team (who won our league back-to-back during the span of our story) or in our school had a prayer of guarding her. Or getting past her on a consistent basis. She would routinely be the girl playing pickup games with 9 guys, and most of them were on the basketball team and she was the best player on the court. DI colleges are full of those players; top DI colleges are full of players twice as good as she was. WNBA teams (just like NBA teams) are full of players who were twice as good as most DI players and got drafted. I wonder if some of you guys realize that you don't just show up and get drafted in women's sports. -
tk421
I'm sorry, but you all are crazy if you think a WNBA team with the biggest player being 6'5'' 190 pounds is going to beat teams like I listed that have guys 6'6'' 6'8'' some even 6'10'' and 7'4''. I don't care how "bad" you think high school ball is, it's not going to happen. Fundamentals don't mean squat when the women can't get a freaking shot off.
-
Pick6
They way I see it..guys are bigger, faster, stronger, can jump higher, and are quicker. The part of the game I can see where a girl would be on an even level with the guy is shooting because it deals with form not physical ability, but then again girls use a smaller ball. Its going to be hard as hell for them to get a shot off as well. If there are guys good enough to come out of high school and go pro, why cant they be good enough to beat a WNBA player?
-
tk421
I seriously want someone to explain how an offense designed to get women open against other women is going to work on a team of 6'6'' and taller guys who are longer, faster and more athletic? You think a pick from a women is going to stop them from guarding someone? A team with a 7'4'' center is going to get out rebounded, out "fundamentaled"? I'm not talking about crappy basketball here, these guys play a high level.
-
sleeper
tk421;740776 wrote:I'm sorry, but you all are crazy if you think a WNBA team with the biggest player being 6'5'' 190 pounds is going to beat teams like I listed that have guys 6'6'' 6'8'' some even 6'10'' and 7'4''. I don't care how "bad" you think high school ball is, it's not going to happen. Fundamentals don't mean squat when the women can't get a freaking shot off.
Height and weight is a lot smaller factor than you think. Just because a player is taller or weighs more doesn't mean they are a better player. -
sleeper
tk421;740788 wrote:I seriously want someone to explain how an offense designed to get women open against other women is going to work on a team of 6'6'' and taller guys who are longer, faster and more athletic? You think a pick from a women is going to stop them from guarding someone? A team with a 7'4'' center is going to get out rebounded, out "fundamentaled"? I'm not talking about crappy basketball here, these guys play a high level.
Screens, pump fakes, boxing out, execution, etc... Honestly have you ever played basketball? The city teams(read: all black teams) don't win every game against the white suburban kids. Heck, they don't even win half of them.