Men vs. Women

• OSH

  

  What ball are they using, a men's ball or a women's ball?
• O-Trap

  

  OSH;742286 wrote:What ball are they using, a men's ball or a women's ball?

  
  This whole argument is now reduced to shambles.
• OSH

  

  O-Trap;742302 wrote:This whole argument is now reduced to shambles.

  
  I know a former college SID (sports information director) who was taking a course with a particular feminist instructor. She always fought saying that men are equals with women. She was a basketball coach too. This guy, before he was SID, was a student with her and got in this "equals" discussion with her one time. He said, if women are so equal to men in sports then why don't women use the same size of basketball? He also added that the basket was the same circumference, the hoop is the same height, but the 3-point line is closer. If women are so equal to men in sports, then why don't they make the basketball the same size, or at least make the basketball a relative circumference, or lower the hoop a bit too...
  
  It was pretty funny. We both knew the instructor, so I was really amused by it. I would've loved to been there when that discussion came up.
• tk421

  

  Dude, 5'11' the average height? Did no one look at those rosters? Little D3 Ironton has an average height way above 5'11''. It's not 1970 anymore, high school players are pretty big. Let's see.
  
  Chesapeake: 5'9'', 6', 6'2'',5'7'',5'7'',5'8'',6'2'',5'11'',5'10'',6',6'4'',6'3'',6'7''. Average height is 71.8 inches. Just under 6' and that's because of the 4 shorties they have on the team.
  
  Ironton: 6',5'10'',6'1'',6'2'',5'10'',6'4'',5'11'',6'4'',6'5'',6'4''. Average height is 73.5 inches. 6' 1.5'', way above 5'11' for little D3 team.
• O-Trap

  

  OSH;742314 wrote:I know a former college SID (sports information director) who was taking a course with a particular feminist instructor. She always fought saying that men are equals with women. She was a basketball coach too. This guy, before he was SID, was a student with her and got in this "equals" discussion with her one time. He said, if women are so equal to men in sports then why don't women use the same size of basketball? He also added that the basket was the same circumference, the hoop is the same height, but the 3-point line is closer. If women are so equal to men in sports, then why don't they make the basketball the same size, or at least make the basketball a relative circumference, or lower the hoop a bit too...
  
  It was pretty funny. We both knew the instructor, so I was really amused by it. I would've loved to been there when that discussion came up.

  
  It would have been brilliant to see.
  
  My wife is very much like that woman, but it's funny when I chase her around the house, because she always says something like, "Stop it! I'm a little, tiny woman!"
  
  I lol.
• sherm03

  

  tk421;742318 wrote:Dude, 5'11' the average height? Did no one look at those rosters? Little D3 Ironton has an average height way above 5'11''. It's not 1970 anymore, high school players are pretty big. Let's see.
  
  Chesapeake: 5'9'', 6', 6'2'',5'7'',5'7'',5'8'',6'2'',5'11'',5'10'',6',6'4'',6'3'',6'7''. Average height is 71.8 inches. Just under 6' and that's because of the 4 shorties they have on the team.
  
  Ironton: 6',5'10'',6'1'',6'2'',5'10'',6'4'',5'11'',6'4'',6'5'',6'4''. Average height is 73.5 inches. 6' 1.5'', way above 5'11' for little D3 team.

  
  Those two lines made me lol. Basically telling the guy he was crazy for saying 5'11" was average...and then pointing out two teams that average pretty close to 5'11". If 3.5" is way above, I'd love to see what you classify a 6" height difference.
• O-Trap

  

  sherm03;742323 wrote:Those two lines made me lol. Basically telling the guy he was crazy for saying 5'11" was average...and then pointing out two teams that average pretty close to 5'11". If 3.5" is way above, I'd love to see what you classify a 6" height difference.

  
  I actually chuckled a little bit as well.
  
  My brother's senior year, the starting five were 5' 11", 6' 3", 6' 4", 6' 5", and 6' 7". On the bench, the players were mostly 6' and taller (there was one exception ... kid was like 5' 7"). And again ... tiny school with a small pool to choose from.
• tk421

  

  Those are the averages. Of course some will still be 5'11'' or under, but saying that a high school basketball team isn't going to be taller than a WNBA team is crazy. And I'd argue that the "boys" could hang in the fundamentals department with the women. Has anyone ever seen Chesapeake play? They are solid fundamentally year in and out.
  
  I'm still not understanding how fundamentals are going to help the women though. You have a limited amount of space. The guys are bigger and longer, they block way more of the floor than the women do. The guys are faster, they aren't going to get beaten on a fast break. The guys will get the majority of the rebounds, anyway. How are dribbling and passing going to help the females when they can't penetrate the lane? So, they can throw the ball around the perimeter nice, wow whoopty doo. Unless they hit 100% of the contested threes they jack up, and that would be all the shots they'd get, I don't see how they'd have a chance of winning.
• sherm03

  

  tk421;742326 wrote:Those are the averages. Of course some will still be 5'11'' or under, but saying that a high school basketball team isn't going to be taller than a WNBA team is crazy. And I'd argue that the "boys" could hang in the fundamentals department with the women. Has anyone ever seen Chesapeake play? They are solid fundamentally year in and out.
  
  I'm still not understanding how fundamentals are going to help the women though. You have a limited amount of space. The guys are bigger and longer, they block way more of the floor than the women do. The guys are faster, they aren't going to get beaten on a fast break. The guys will get the majority of the rebounds, anyway. How are dribbling and passing going to help the females when they can't penetrate the lane? So, they can throw the ball around the perimeter nice, wow whoopty doo. Unless they hit 100% of the contested threes they jack up, and that would be all the shots they'd get, I don't see how they'd have a chance of winning.

  
  First of all, I realize they are averages. The point is, the dude said that he thinks most schools average height is 5'11". You basically said he was crazy...and then showed two teams whose average height is pretty damn close to 5'11".
  
  And the females are ONLY going to be able to get threes? They aren't ever going to get a look other than a three-pointer? Riiiiggghhhhttt.....
• Hb31187

  

  0 Jaylen Benton PG So. 6-1 160
  3 Trey Burke (C) PG Sr. 6-1 175
  10 Jordan Potts G Jr. 6-0 180
  12 Lavonte Justice (C) PG Sr. 5-10 165
  20 Jakyl Cornley W Sr. 6-3 180
  22 Kechaun Lewis W Jr. 6-3 170
  23 Nate Jamison W Fr. 6-2 170
  24 Johnathon Spencer PG So. 5-11 160
  30 Ty Hairston W Fr. 6-2 165
  32 Jalen Robinson PF Jr. 6-8 220
  35 Yemi Sholesi SF Fr. 6-3 180
  40 Devon Scott PF Jr. 6-8 235
  42 Jhustus Cornley PG Fr. 5-9 145
  44 Roberto Pierre (C) SF Sr. 6-1 220
  50 Laquan Williams SG Sr. 5-10 185
  
  Would beat a WNBA team
• clickclickboom

  You guys are pretty convinced that men are far more superior that women aren't you? Bobby Riggs thought the same thing too.
• Hb31187

  

  Tennis doesnt put as much of an emphasis on athleticism as Basketball does.
• clickclickboom

  eh.. well same idea. mediocre talent vs. the best there is to offer.. probably gonna have the same outcome in this event
• Pick6

  

  clickclickboom;742427 wrote:eh.. well same idea. mediocre talent vs. the best there is to offer.. probably gonna have the same outcome in this event

  
  in tennis do you guard people and have physical contact with them? No. You hit a ball back and forth.
• gport_tennis

  I read a book about this tennis match where the author was accusing riggs of throwing the match and receiving a huge payoff. A lot of evidence supporting this claim
  
  Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
• tk421

  

  clickclickboom;742391 wrote:You guys are pretty convinced that men are far more superior that women aren't you? Bobby Riggs thought the same thing too.

  
  Let's see, the best female tennis player of the time versus a guy 55 years old. Please. Did you know Venus and Serena Williams played a guy that was like 200th on the tour? Got smoked by the guy, didn't even win a set.
• tk421

  

  sherm03;742336 wrote: And the females are ONLY going to be able to get threes? They aren't ever going to get a look other than a three-pointer? Riiiiggghhhhttt.....

  
  You're obviously the female basketball god here, explain to me how exactly the women's offense is going to work. The guys, all taller and longer, will just play an extended zone contesting all the outside shots. How are the women going to get inside the paint and score? You think a 6'5'' 190 pound female post player is going to back down her male counterpart?
• sherm03

  

  I don't know, dude. I'm not a basketball coach. This is a hypothetical that we will never know the answer to. Not sure why you're so gung ho about this.
  
  So you can continue thinking that the boys' team will dominate the women. And I will continue to think that the women will win almost every game.
• OSH

  

  I have refrained from saying anything about soccer, I don't want this to turn into a "soccer sucks" topic.
  
  The USWNT regularly plays exhibitions and friendlies against U17, U16, and U15 club teams in the United States. They use these friendlies to prepare for playing other national teams. In 2009, the USWNT got beat 5-1 by a U17 SoCal ODP team -- reports have it being a lot worse than the score already shows. This isn't the only time they've been beaten, it is rather commonplace for them to play boys club teams and be beaten. All of these club teams aren't always classified as "elite" either.
  
  If the USWNT, which is believed to be top 3 in the world in women's soccer, loses to boys U17, U16, and U15 club teams...I believe it isn't out of the question that WNBA teams could be beaten by many boys high school basketball teams.
• tk421

  

  Same with women's Olympic hockey in the U.S. and Canada. They regularly play high school aged teams to prepare for the Olympics and they do lose games.
• O-Trap

  

  clickclickboom;742391 wrote:You guys are pretty convinced that men are far more superior that women aren't you? Bobby Riggs thought the same thing too.

  Based on evidence, I am persuaded to believe that men and women, given training regimens and dietary plans being equal, are not the same, physiologically. Statistics (for example, the ones I mentioned earlier) indicate that upon hitting puberty, boys do tend to athletically surpass their female counterparts. It doesn't mean men are better human beings or win at life. It means that men are naturally predisposed to being bigger, faster, and stronger. That's all. Call it testosterone. Call it genetic evolution. Call it whatever you like, but other than atypical anecdotes like the one you mentioned, you will find overwhelming evidence in the concept that men's physiology simply predisposes them to being able to compete in athletic events at a higher level on average. Exceptions will naturally exist, but they will be rare. Take the worst team in the NBA and put it up against the best team in the WNBA. Who wins? The worst team in the NFL against the best team in the IWFL or any other female football league. Take rugby. Take soccer. Take track. Swimming. Hockey. Hell, even golf. I'm betting you find that men will outperform their female counterpart in the respective sports. Again, I go back to the fact that the fastest women EVER to have run the 100m sprint (not just in the Olympics) was never fast enough to hold the Ohio high school boys record for the same race. Same with the 200m, the 400m, the 800m, the 1600m, the high jump, and the long jump.
  
  So, I am convinced ... but only because that's what the statistics seem to say.
  
  So the question being raised here is, at what level are women and men able to compete closely? I don't think we're far off. The D1 schools I'm talking about could honestly beat a lot of small men's college teams (DIII colleges). An average D1 school will be much taller than 5' 11". This year's Akron St. V-M team averages (including their bench players) 6' 2".
  

  OSH;742522 wrote:I have refrained from saying anything about soccer, I don't want this to turn into a "soccer sucks" topic.
  
  The USWNT regularly plays exhibitions and friendlies against U17, U16, and U15 club teams in the United States. They use these friendlies to prepare for playing other national teams. In 2009, the USWNT got beat 5-1 by a U17 SoCal ODP team -- reports have it being a lot worse than the score already shows. This isn't the only time they've been beaten, it is rather commonplace for them to play boys club teams and be beaten. All of these club teams aren't always classified as "elite" either.
  
  If the USWNT, which is believed to be top 3 in the world in women's soccer, loses to boys U17, U16, and U15 club teams...I believe it isn't out of the question that WNBA teams could be beaten by many boys high school basketball teams.

  
  Soccer sucks. I kid, I kid.
  
  This is a perfect example. It's just a fact of nature that on average, men are physically built and predisposed to being better at athletics. Doesn't mean they're extra special human beings or anything. Just means their bodies are different.
• OSH

  

  O-Trap;742527 wrote:It's just a fact of nature that on average, men are physically built and predisposed to being better at athletics. Doesn't mean they're extra special human beings or anything. Just means their bodies are different.

  
  Those who attended the games would say that the USWNT did very well tactically and even possessed very well at times. But the problem was they were just outclassed athletically...speed, power and strength.
• sleeper

  

  clickclickboom;742391 wrote:You guys are pretty convinced that men are far more superior that women aren't you? Bobby Riggs thought the same thing too.

  
  It's impossible to debate when the "Men" side thinks height, and athleticism make that big of a difference. Heck, take me (6'1") and 4 other guys at my local pick up game and I bet we could compete with a high school team that was taller, faster, more athletic, etc.. Height makes a difference, sure, but I've played against a ton of players who are taller, faster, more athletic, and handed them their lunch by playing fundemental basketball. I'll take a team of team players who can shoot over a bunch of selfish high school boys who think they are the next Kobe Bryant and take 50 terrible shots per game(and make 3 of them).
• Hb31187

  

  LOL you could compete against a shitty d3 team maybe.A good D1 team would blow you away....unless you're still living your glory days and think you're 18 again.
  
  Athleticism trumps fundamentals.....look at the NBA case and point. If the best players were fundamental players the league would be full of Ivy League kids
• Rotinaj

  

  lol people on both extremes of this argument are ridiculous. To say either side would dominate is just dumb. I personally think a WNBA team would win, but would i be surpised if a highschool team won? No. Also i bet Kevin Love gets all those rebounds and is a great player because he is SO much bigger, stronger and faster than the guys hes up against right?