[miser]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Because men and women are physically different, do you not understand that?

Of course I understand that - but so are you and me. So is everyone that competes. So is a tall person versus a short person, a fat person and a thin person, and so on. What about we have an African only league because they seem to dominate our sprinting competitions? Where is the meaningful distinction?

(Original post by konvictz0007)
The seeded players are top guys, if it was about individuals there would be no women's tennis game because they would not earn enough to support a career.

It's no more our job to owe them a career than it is for us to owe a career to amputee tennis players or over-60 tennis players, yet their playing ability is likely similarly compromised.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Its like a car and bicycle, you can argue they both have wheels so let them race, but of course it is pointless because the car is strong favourite to win.

Would you really pay and sit there to watch a car race a bicycle? Would you pay to watch Roger Federer taking on sharapova and winning 6-0 6-0 6-0? This is why they are kept seperate and they are both seeded for grand slams for competitive fixtures.

No, but maybe it's just me for wanting tennis to be about finding the best player and not about cashing in on spectators.

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by miser)
That's interesting - and I wouldn't dispute it. But shouldn't the competition be about individuals? Any individual with any circumstances able to compete on an equal basis for the prize, without discrimination based on anything but playing ability. Why factor in gender, yet not anything else that might just as much affect playing ability - height, fitness, strength, background, health? It is a competition, and the only factor to be considered is playing ability.

Don't be silly. Wimbledon is 128 players right? Serena Williams and Sharapova might qualify for the first round but wouldn't get past that. In the long term it would mean no women want to be top players and so women would get even further away..

[miser]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
Don't be silly. Wimbledon is 128 players right? Serena Williams and Sharapova might qualify for the first round but wouldn't get past that. In the long term it would mean no women want to be top players and so women would get even further away..

Why is it important to have women players and not other groups? Either you can have competition or you can have equality; it's a conflicting ideal to have both.

[boba]

because I enjoy looking at men more than I enjoy looking at women

[Lunch_Box]

Not when you have Sharapova playing (guys back me up)

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by miser)
Why is it important to have women players and not other groups? Either you can have competition or you can have equality; it's a conflicting ideal to have both.

But people can change if they're fat (how many fat athletes is there anyway?).

I see what you mean but all it would do is get rid of the women's game completely and, if you did it in all sports, completely discourage girls from doing exercise. It would never happen.

[miser]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
But people can change if they're fat (how many fat athletes is there anyway?).

I see what you mean but all it would do is get rid of the women's game completely and, if you did it in all sports, completely discourage girls from doing exercise. It would never happen.

Yeah, it's unlikely it'd happen any time soon. I don't think women would stop exercising though - after all, how many people play tennis because they're enamoured by the idea of competing at Wimbledon? Fitness is its own reward - people will always exercise, and a lot of people won't, no matter how much they like tennis.

[K the Failure]

I'm not sexist, but women's tennis just makes me want to fap.

[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by miser)
Yeah, it's unlikely it'd happen any time soon. I don't think women would stop exercising though - after all, how many people play tennis because they're enamoured by the idea of competing at Wimbledon? Fitness is its own reward - people will always exercise, and a lot of people won't, no matter how much they like tennis.

If it was every single sport, and girls knew that no matter how good they were at a sport they wouldn't get a chance to play professionally basically because they were born weaker/slower/smaller/ than 50% of the population, i'm sure less would play sport.

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by miser)
Of course I understand that - but so are you and me. So is everyone that competes. So is a tall person versus a short person, a fat person and a thin person, and so on. What about we have an African only league because they seem to dominate our sprinting competitions? Where is the meaningful distinction?


It's no more our job to owe them a career than it is for us to owe a career to amputee tennis players or over-60 tennis players, yet their playing ability is likely similarly compromised.


No, but maybe it's just me for wanting tennis to be about finding the best player and not about cashing in on spectators.

I think you fail to understand the point.

If you are looking for the best tennis player, then look at the men's top 10 (or the men's top 500), they are the top players, you already have the information you need.

Your understanding equality is a contradiction because men and women are not physically equal, therefore it false to assess them as one.

Take your average woman, and your average man, put them in a boxing ring, I'm sure you can work out what would happen. Now take the best female boxer in the world and the best male boxer in the world, same story.

Your argument makes no sense, its like asking why cant a man model women's clothes as a model, he may face competition from other slim super models, but let him try?

[konvictz0007]

Furthermore competition is always divided and segmented according to ability.

In football we have tiers, starting from premier league to championship to division 1 and so on. It is designed so that every team has a basis, and competes with possibility of promotion. I think its worked pretty well so far don't you think? But you seem to have "better" ideas.

In the tennis grand slams like Wimbledon, a selection of the top players are seeded, this is designed so that they meet at the later stages of tournaments, this results, generally, in more competitive fixtures later on in tournaments. Bad for those who go in unseeded though.

Maybe they should allow some women to enter the men's section of some sports. Boxing would not be included here. But they could allow it in tennis where women have a choice to enter the men's tour. But you must consider a grand slam draw like Wimbledon allows for only 128 players, I say only because that is a very small amount if you consider the number of professional players.

This means that no women would feature in any grand slams so you would never see a female tennis player on TV. Even sharapova as powerful and hard hitting as she seems on TV, her fastest ever serve in the history of tennis career was 121 mph, whereas servers in the men's game serve regularly, consistently much much higher than that.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by miser)
That's interesting - and I wouldn't dispute it. But shouldn't the competition be about individuals? Any individual with any circumstances able to compete on an equal basis for the prize, without discrimination based on anything but playing ability. Why factor in gender, yet not anything else that might just as much affect playing ability - height, fitness, strength, background, health? It is a competition, and the only factor to be considered is playing ability.



Thanks for the link.

Why have weight divisions in boxing? Why have lightweight/normal rowing? Weight divisions in a bunch of sports in fact. Splits in sports will naturally occur where there's an enormous advantage to be bigger/stronger/whatever, it just so happens that sex is a generally pretty big discriminator in sport.

[Sternumator]

Mens is better because it is a much higher standard and people would rather watch the highest standard because their skills are more impressive. You can say men are better at tennis without being labelled sexist, it is stating an obvious fact.

[soempty]

I was looking at this thread i came to a thought that it's pretty much impossible to explain why men's tennis is better than women's being a sexist. Even if i say that men are better than women that would be true in context of tennis. How would you give sexist explanations to this?

[jhuntley93]

(Original post by Lunch_Box)
Not when you have Sharapova playing (guys back me up)

nah wozniacki all the way, plus she dosn't shriek!

[PapaShmurff]

(Original post by miser)
Why is it important to have women players and not other groups? Either you can have competition or you can have equality; it's a conflicting ideal to have both.

Do you want the wheelchair players stuck in the main draw as well then?

For "equality".

[py0alb]

(Original post by miser)
Of course I understand that - but so are you and me. So is everyone that competes. So is a tall person versus a short person, a fat person and a thin person, and so on. What about we have an African only league because they seem to dominate our sprinting competitions? Where is the meaningful distinction?


It's no more our job to owe them a career than it is for us to owe a career to amputee tennis players or over-60 tennis players, yet their playing ability is likely similarly compromised.


No, but maybe it's just me for wanting tennis to be about finding the best player and not about cashing in on spectators.

Is it quite a thought provoking idea having a white man sprinting race and a black man swimming race etc.

I think the difference between different "races" excelling at different sports is as much cultural as physical though.

[ShredMaster]

(Original post by L.O.V.E)
I agree. I would much rather watch Men's tennis...

Attachment 159886

Attachment 159887

xP

[TheHistoryStudent]

(Original post by Ben F)
Because men grunt less than women in tennis.

...I mean who really wants to listen to this???

Yup - was going to post something like this but you beat me to it

[Clip]

(Original post by py0alb)
I think the difference between different "races" excelling at different sports is as much cultural as physical though.

I wouldn't use the word "racial". I think "genetic" is more appropriate. Compare East and West Africa. East Africans are predominately ectomorphs with a lot of slow-twitch muscle - and they absolutely dominate elite distance running. However, they are rubbish at sprinting, swimming and football. Correct me if I'm wrong, but West Africa (predominately mesomorphic body types with a lot of fast-twitch muscle fibre - especially in the legs) hasn't produced a single world class distance runner - but West Africans and their descendants dominate explosive sports - short distance running, football and such like.


TL;DR - Kenyans tend to be skinny with great endurance - win marathons. West Africans/Afro-Caribbeans tend to be muscular and explosive - play football and sprint. Olympic throwing events are always won by white people.