I see horses don’t start with equal weights. Is that a significant factor to inform this discussion? Not that I am keen on horse racing, but acknowledge it. I would say that other horse sports can be equal, also what about shooting and archery, bobsleigh, formula one, motorbikes? There are probably other equipment based things that can be equal. Skateboarding?
We used to be very involved in Kent archery and although men & women compete at the same distance indoors at short distances, outdoors they each have different maximum distances. Men shoot 100 yds/90 metres and women shoot a maximum of 80 yds/70 metres with recurve bows Most men can pull a greater weight of bow.
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
That’s a very good analogy I’ve not see before. I like the application of that.
Laura Davies stating quite clearly on Sky that women wouldn’t be competitive off the men’s tees.
Quite.
So they have a tournament where the women play off the ladies tees, which in a European Tour even will be 60-100 yards ahead of the men's tees. And then they compete for the same prize money.
And dont forget, this is a sport where if you take a drop an inch nearer the hole you can be disqualified.
Nutcharut Wongharuthai of Thailand won the World Women’s Snooker Championship final 6-5. Not quite the marathon the men go through. But this victory has earned her a place on this year's professional world snooker tour.
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
Yes, I get the point. Things are clearly not identical. But is it possible to enjoy the womens' game, even though it is not identical to the mens'?
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
Mixed sports work fine when either you mixed pairs playing with the same rules and equipment, e.g. mixed doubles in tennis or badminton, or where it's more a relay event, e.g. mixed relays events in swimming or mixed triathlon. Indeed the Olympics last summer introduced a number of mixed events.
With some sports, the difference in strength is notable, and does impact the enjoyment a bit. Watching bits of the women's Hundred matches last year out of curiosity interest really, it was really noticeable how far in the boundary were brought in to enable them to get 4s and 6s. For a version of cricket which thrives on big hitting, this is a major drawback commercially.
So, Golfie, I presume you don’t agree with the handicap system in the game which allows, for example, an 80 year old to compete with a 20 year old?
I don't think you understand. The 80 yr old & the 20 yr old are playing the same course off the same tees. That's a level playing field. The handicap system just levels up their playing ability.
In the Netherlands tournament it might have been better if they gave the women a handicap. At least then they would be playing the same course.
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
Yes, I get the point. Things are clearly not identical. But is it possible to enjoy the womens' game, even though it is not identical to the mens'?
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
I'm not comparing the women's game to the men's or any other sport. Simply different people playing the same course. One just happened to be female.
As the title of this thread says. Equality. Imo there was nothing equal in one person having a hundred yards advantage, especially when the 2 competitors are professionals playing off scratch.
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
Yes, I get the point. Things are clearly not identical. But is it possible to enjoy the womens' game, even though it is not identical to the mens'?
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
I'm not comparing the women's game to the men's or any other sport. Simply different people playing the same course. One just happened to be female.
As the title of this thread says. Equality. Imo there was nothing equal in one person having a hundred yards advantage, especially when the 2 competitors are professionals playing off scratch.
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
Yes, I get the point. Things are clearly not identical. But is it possible to enjoy the womens' game, even though it is not identical to the mens'?
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
I'm not comparing the women's game to the men's or any other sport. Simply different people playing the same course. One just happened to be female.
As the title of this thread says. Equality. Imo there was nothing equal in one person having a hundred yards advantage, especially when the 2 competitors are professionals playing off scratch.
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.
The handicap system is there for a reason. Not just shortening the course. What next.....larger holes ?
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
Yes, I get the point. Things are clearly not identical. But is it possible to enjoy the womens' game, even though it is not identical to the mens'?
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
I'm not comparing the women's game to the men's or any other sport. Simply different people playing the same course. One just happened to be female.
As the title of this thread says. Equality. Imo there was nothing equal in one person having a hundred yards advantage, especially when the 2 competitors are professionals playing off scratch.
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.
The handicap system is there for a reason. Not just shortening the course. What next.....larger holes ?
OK, so they didn't get the balance right. Or she's very good. I don't know.
You all jest, but honestly, who needs 500-yard holes? Most of the best and most iconic golf holes are considerably shorter than that. Normalise 350-yard par fours with treacherous greens and ask the musclemen to drive them if they dare. Then we could have genuine men vs women tournaments on a completely even playing field
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
Yes, I get the point. Things are clearly not identical. But is it possible to enjoy the womens' game, even though it is not identical to the mens'?
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
I'm not comparing the women's game to the men's or any other sport. Simply different people playing the same course. One just happened to be female.
As the title of this thread says. Equality. Imo there was nothing equal in one person having a hundred yards advantage, especially when the 2 competitors are professionals playing off scratch.
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.
The handicap system is there for a reason. Not just shortening the course. What next.....larger holes ?
I can "see" the headlines now. Women to get larger holes
The BBC is the bastion of inappropriate equivalence. The Today programme is particularly good. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve listened to the football updates, surprised that I didn’t realise I’d missed a thriller on Match Of The Day, only to be informed that Tracey scored a hat-trick.
The rise of women’s football is remarkable and the quality has improved immeasurably, but it doesn’t have the equivalence yet of tennis or rowing or athletics or any number of sports where the woman’s game is genuinely comparable in terms of broad appeal.
It’s a weird one, and maybe my perception and appreciation will increase over time.
I don't think it will ever reach the level of appeal the men's game has. Certainly not in my lifetime anyway, and I'm only 31
TBH I don't see how it ever can, if for no other reason than in terms of being a paying spectator the market is pretty much saturated. For the majority of fans, their club's first team fixtures already demand more of their disposable income/spare time/credits with loved ones/sanity than any more will allow. It's simply not a realistic proposition for the average season ticket holder of a club's men's team to start going to all the women's matches as well. As small handful might manage it, but for the majority the idea isn't even at the level of being a dream, it's a complete non starter. As much as I want Charlton women/ladies (I genuinely don't know what they're called) to win every match, I won't be going to watch them any time soon.
I see horses don’t start with equal weights. Is that a significant factor to inform this discussion? Not that I am keen on horse racing, but acknowledge it. I would say that other horse sports can be equal, also what about shooting and archery, bobsleigh, formula one, motorbikes? There are probably other equipment based things that can be equal. Skateboarding?
Women also compete in bowls with men.
Whilst very rarely winning, because it’s played on a level footing, ladies tees seems just like a handicap in bowls, can’t see anything wrong with it at all.
One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
Beth Harmon?
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
My whole point is that the women on this competition had a big advantage purely because they were teeing off many yards ahead of the men. And for that reason alone the competition was unfair and duely shown when the person playing 72 holes in a shorter distance than many of her opponents won. I appreciate men & women are built differently & therefore why they shouldn't play together.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
Yes, I get the point. Things are clearly not identical. But is it possible to enjoy the womens' game, even though it is not identical to the mens'?
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
I'm not comparing the women's game to the men's or any other sport. Simply different people playing the same course. One just happened to be female.
As the title of this thread says. Equality. Imo there was nothing equal in one person having a hundred yards advantage, especially when the 2 competitors are professionals playing off scratch.
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.
The handicap system is there for a reason. Not just shortening the course. What next.....larger holes ?
Maybe she’s just played better than them over the various rounds?
Just because women CAN do something that traditionally was just performed by men, doesn't mean they SHOULD be doing it.
If a city had 500 male coach drivers and due to a politically correct push to make it 50/50 men and women that doesn't mean the women SHOULD be coach drivers. That policy has just put 250 dad's in the dole queue. Ask the women in their lives how happy they are for the women who have just put their family in poverty.
I think this is just a case of the organisers / course management getting the distance between the men’s and women’s tees out of whack.
There can be 40 yards or so difference between men’s drives in a normal event……but Grant was often 60 or 70 yards ahead of her playing partner. This is too much of an advantage.
There is usually plenty of room on a championship golf course to move tees back/ forward and it seems they just got the spacing wrong here.
If the spacing of the women’s / men’s tees result in average drives ending in within a sensible margin then I don’t see why there shouldn’t be more of these tournaments.
Just because women CAN do something that traditionally was just performed by men, doesn't mean they SHOULD be doing it.
If a city had 500 male coach drivers and due to a politically correct push to make it 50/50 men and women that doesn't mean the women SHOULD be coach drivers. That policy has just put 250 dad's in the dole queue. Ask the women in their lives how happy they are for the women who have just put their family in poverty.
Comments
Back to topic ... I wish we'd stop confusing 'equal' with 'identical'.
Many things are equal (in Maths terms 5+3 is equal to 6+2, as is 7+1), but 'identical' is a special case of equality (so, 5+3 is identical to and therefore equal to 5+3).
When we compare mens' and womens' sports, let's recognise that they will often be different, but that they could well be equal (not identical) overall (eg in terms of skill, entertainment, drama etc.)
If we insist on 'identical', it is unlikely to happen ... because men and women are different ... just like 5+3 and 6+2.
I wonder what Lewis Hamilton would think if he was up against a women driver who only had to race 40 laps compared to his 54.
If any of you have played golf then you'll know the difference in yardage between the Mens Competition tees (not the daily yellows) and the womens (red) tees. As I said, I only saw her tee off one hole and her yardage was 430 and the men's was 533.
How is that anyway "equal" in a game where you have to even move your ball back if it has been hit by an opponents ball & rolled a few inches (as happened yesterday in the Canadian Open).
@DaveMehmet's a bit slow tonight.
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
With some sports, the difference in strength is notable, and does impact the enjoyment a bit. Watching bits of the women's Hundred matches last year out of curiosity interest really, it was really noticeable how far in the boundary were brought in to enable them to get 4s and 6s. For a version of cricket which thrives on big hitting, this is a major drawback commercially.
In the Netherlands tournament it might have been better if they gave the women a handicap. At least then they would be playing the same course.
As the title of this thread says. Equality. Imo there was nothing equal in one person having a hundred yards advantage, especially when the 2 competitors are professionals playing off scratch.
The handicap system is there for a reason. Not just shortening the course. What next.....larger holes ?
But the principle is OK.
Having an existential crisis here
Women to get larger holes
If a city had 500 male coach drivers and due to a politically correct push to make it 50/50 men and women that doesn't mean the women SHOULD be coach drivers. That policy has just put 250 dad's in the dole queue. Ask the women in their lives how happy they are for the women who have just put their family in poverty.
This nonsense is being played out everywhere.