Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Equality in sport.......or not.
Comments
-
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.seth plum said: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?1 -
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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+2.5 -
I think that trying to focus on equality is actually a misnomer when actually it's a question of equity.
5 -
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).0 -
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?0
-
That’s a very good analogy I’ve not see before. I like the application of that.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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+2.0 -
you are comparing different things.charente addick said: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?This is not a handicap game - this is a scratch tournament2 -
golfaddick said:
Quite.charente addick said:Laura Davies stating quite clearly on Sky that women wouldn’t be competitive off the men’s tees.
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.
@DaveMehmet's a bit slow tonight.
4 -
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.
1 -
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'?golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.0 - Sponsored links:
-
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.0 -
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.charente addick said: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?
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.0 -
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.Dave Rudd said:
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'?golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
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.0 -
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
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'?golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
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.3 -
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.Dave Rudd said:
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
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'?golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
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 ?
0 -
OK, so they didn't get the balance right. Or she's very good. I don't know.golfaddick said:
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.Dave Rudd said:
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
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'?golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
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.0 -
9 strokes... bigger holes... I don't know which post to quote with the Kenneth Williams GIF
Having an existential crisis here5 -
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 field0
-
(I know par fives are more of an issue, but...make them all about 480-490 yards and put loads and loads of hazards near the green?)0
- Sponsored links:
-
I can "see" the headlines now.golfaddick said:
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.Dave Rudd said:
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
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'?golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
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 ?
Women to get larger holes0 -
Should try playing the 9 hole south course at Upchurch River Valley, has a 623 yard par 5!0
-
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.sam3110 said:
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 31SporadicAddick said: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.3 -
LenGlover said:seth plum said: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.0 -
Maybe she’s just played better than them over the various rounds?golfaddick said:
The fact she won by 9 strokes I think makes it anything but equal.Dave Rudd said:
I'm not defending it ... but the hundred yards advantage is compensation for the disadvantage in strength, and thus making the contest more equal.golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
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'?golfaddick said:
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.Dave Rudd said:
Beth Harmon?seth plum said:One mystery is why hasn’t there been a woman world chess champion yet.
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).
If so, you may have equality in terms of entertainment etc.
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 ?0 -
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.
This nonsense is being played out everywhere.0 -
Why would the family be in poverty if the woman was working instead of the man? I assume they’d be paid the same.0
-
Of course not. Everybody knows women are paid 60% less than men.Stu_of_Kunming said:Why would the family be in poverty if the woman was working instead of the man? I assume they’d be paid the same.0 -
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.1
-
Was wondering when VOT was going to show up....ValleyOfTears said: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.
This nonsense is being played out everywhere.
1
