<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Are girls (and women) getting stronger, and why?

September 18 2008 at 8:53 AM
sage  (Login sage7777777)

 
Truy asked this interesting question on another thread:
"So you are saying that girls are getting stronger? I won't deny or agree. But why you think this is? Are girls genes evolving or what? Or are they only beginning to show their hidden potential? Are the female muscles pound to pound stronger than males?"

I doubt even the male supremacists would say girls and women aren’t getting stronger. Take weightlifting. In 1987 the women’s World Champion (in the 67.5kg bodyweight class) lifted 45kg less than the guy who came last in the US National Championship and 95kg less than the winner. This year the women’s Olympic Champion (69kg) lifted 7kg less than the US men’s champion, and more than everyone else in the field. Two schoolgirls lifted more than ten of the thirteen American men.

The fact that this is happening so quickly means it’s not genetic evolution – that takes thousands of years in humans.

There are lots of other possibilities, medical science, nutrition, etc., but I think hidden potential is the most likely. Long ago in parts of the UK families of tin miners used to work their own deep shaft. The men did the skilled work of mining at the rock-face. Men at that time thought women couldn’t do skilled work, but didn’t doubt their strength. The women’s job was to carry baskets of rock, weighing more then they did, up near-vertical ladders to the surface on their backs. Many got sick and crippled in later life, but they got that job done.

Women haven’t yet developed their potential strength because they’ve almost never got (and typically still don’t get) as much exercise as men. Nowadays they take more exercise than they used to and so they’re stronger than they used to be. Women weightlifters take a lot of strength-building exercise and get a lot stronger.

As for whose muscles are stronger, looking at weightlifting again, the top women may have improved faster, but the top men still lift 20% more than they can. So for now it looks as though men’s muscles are stronger, but there’s a huge gender-overlap. Look at the schoolgirl weightlifters on the 'Boys and Women...' thread.

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
dave
(no login)

nonsense

September 19 2008, 11:37 PM 

Pure nonsense. Your comparison of women's WORLD performance with men's USA, points solely to this: weightlifting is not a popular sport in the USA nowadays. That's all. Be it USA, be it any other place in the world, when and where it does become popular enough to attract good competitors for a given period of time, men will always show better results than women for that period. Teen males will do better than teen females, men will do better than women, many teen males (obviously those who gets faster through puberty, but many others as well) will do better than adult women. That is a matter of fact, and you can check it for any objectively measurable record in any sport anywhere in the world: countries/ages/weights/categories/etc. If a few teen females do better than some adult males it's only when you artificially create the two comparison sets, say in two different places, or categories, or whatever. These artificial comparison sets reflect nothing of the real situation of men vs. women actual physical gap which cannot and never will be closed.

 
 Respond to this message   
sage
(Login sage7777777)

Balanced good sense actually

September 20 2008, 8:32 AM 

No, Dave, it isn’t nonsense, but thanks for your point about the comparison. You’re right, it’s unequal. But I didn’t choose it to be equal. I chose that comparison because it’s dramatic and fun. (And because it’s kind of interesting that there are already women and girls out there in the world who are stronger than almost every man their size in the USA.) The important thing is not the comparison itself, but the way it's changed. In 1987 there WAS no comparison. Now there’s no difference!

Instead of all that, I could just have said that in 1987 top male weightlifters worldwide used to lift about 50% more than the top female lifters worldwide. An equal comparison. Now they lift about 20% more. Will the difference get even smaller? Yes, because women’s records are still tumbling, while men’s don’t change much. A female supremacist could claim it’s only a matter of time before these girls and women will be stronger than the men – and at least have some evidence to back that claim.

What you say about men doing better in every sport is wrong. Most long-distance open-water swimming records are held by women and there are other examples – look back through this forum. But it is true that, for the moment, men do better than women in most properly matched comparisons.

You lose it big time when the ‘will always’ comes in. You give no evidence for any: “…real situation of men vs. women actual physical gap which cannot and never will be closed.” That’s not an argument, just a statement. If you give some reason why you believe this, others may be able to argue with you. But with no backup at all it’s not that interesting, the kind of stuff clueless male supremacists often spout, just because they want it to be true. You’re not one of them, are you?

 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Balanced good sense actually

September 20 2008, 1:37 PM 

Yes, Sage. It is nonsense. Choosing the comparison to be dramatic and fun as you did, equals in this case to making that comparison false. Since it is not true that "there are already women and girls out there in the world who are stronger than almost every man their size in the USA" - and it cannot be interesting either, unless you find false statements to be interesting. The unpopularity of this sport in the USA equals to repulsion of good potential from it, hence you definitely do not compare the world women to " almost every man their size in the USA". Moreover, among all weights you choose the most unattractive ones for the USA men and compare those only. There was no comparison in 1987 and there is no one now. There never will be one, as there will always be a big physical gap between men and women.

Instead of all that you should just say that the popularity of the sport in the USA decreases, especially among men in the lighter weights. There is your 50% and 20%. The overall real difference didn't get any smaller, as you can obviously observe from world results over all weights. This overall gap is huge and is unbridgeable. Time comes when men will definitely hit a plateau but so will women – it's just that their plateau will be lower. Female supremacy is stupidity, and same goes for its so called claims.

Again – pure nonsense about "long-distance etc.". Real talent, real sportsmen are repulsed from such events, same as they are repulsed from fighting dogs and crocodiles, although such underground fights do exist, and some men are attracted to them. When and IF this long distance swimming will become "mainstream", will get recognition in the same sense athletics gets, i.e. periodical regional/world/olympic competitions, unions, organizations, officials, etc., etc., when it will have a big pool of talented participants, then the results and the gap will become obvious, since only then they will become SPORT RESULTS.

I lose nothing when I say the gap cannot be closed. It's a physical observation accessible to any normal person who can read the stats, even simpler: to anyone who lives on earth and not inside some fantasies. In the species called Homo Sapiens, the male physically outperform the female. Measure the strength, the speed, the reaction, measure whatever you like – the gap reveals itself as a given physical fact. Whatever training improves - it improves it for both sexes. Whenever the plateau is reached it is reached by both sexes. That’s all there is to it. There is no "believing" component into it, just measuring and reading ability.

Yet, this natural physical gap has nothing to do with person's place/stand/position in society. The fact that someone can not lift a certain weight does not prevent this someone from being an equal member of society. Competitive sport is such a tiny portion of life, that recognizing ones inability to participate in it, does not take anything from that person. So, leave the physical gap to the physical realm – competitive sports, etc. – and don't bring it into real life, the one where you work, love, have friends, community, decisions, elections, etc., etc. The starting line of this real life is indeed equality, and here it is really worth fighting inequality whenever it exists. But ignoring/denying/fighting inequality in weightlifting is nonsense.

 
 Respond to this message   
sage
(Login sage7777777)

Re: Balanced good sense actually

September 22 2008, 5:50 AM 

Well you’ve given arguments of a sort, which you seem to believe, and I’m going to respect that, not just dismiss them as nonsense, which is much too easy to do.

I’m sorry you got so confused by my weightlifting example. It was only there to show that a change has taken place, which it has. You need to READ what I write – the 50% and 20% figures have nothing to do with US weightlifting. I’ll try again – please forget all about that example and read the following very carefully.

Thirty years ago the best male weightlifters in the WORLD, regularly lifted 50% more, per pound of bodyweight, than the best female weightlifters in the WORLD. Now the best male weightlifters in the WORLD lift only 20% more than the best female weightlifters in the WORLD. Understand it now? These ARE EXACTLY your “world results, over all weights”. And the women’s performance is improving every year, while the men’s isn’t changing much.

Well, so a sport isn’t really a sport unless it produces the results you want. How convenient, and why am I not surprised? Open-water swimming is a popular sport, which indeed has periodical regional and world competitions, unions, organizations, officials, plus a big pool of talented participants – and, yes, it’s in the Olympics too. What did you think it was? - a couple of women in their backyard, doing it between the dog-fighting and alligator wrestling? That comparison is just extremely silly.

Now you want to take this wrong idea beyond sport to everything physical: “measure what you like”, you say. Fine, I will. What about the scientific tests which showed female muscle has 75% better endurance than male? – again you’ll find it earlier in this forum. (Are these laboratory experiments also too much like dog-fighting for you?)

You say anyone can read “the stats”, though you never ever quote any. We’ve already agreed there are stats showing men are better at lots of sports-type things (FOR NOW) and women at less. But you don’t seem to understand the difference between facts and opinions. If I tell you the Giants will win the Superbowl next year, that’s an opinion, not a fact, no matter how strongly I believe it and no matter how good the Giants are, because it’s about the future. Your views about men’s and women’s performance in the future are OPINIONS, not facts, and you never give any information, stats or data, of any kind whatever to support them. FACT: women have already overtaken men in some sports. FACT: they’re getting very close in others (like ultramarathon – yes, it has all that stuff though it’s not in the Olympics yet). FACT: they’re not that close in weightlifting yet, but they’ve closed the gap very quickly. FACT: their weightlifting performance is increasing faster than men’s. Come on, Dave, give us some specific facts, not just general (and mostly wrong) opinions.

I’m just repeating myself by now, trying to get you to understand. You are bringing no information to discuss, just bigoted opinions supposedly based on these “stats” you can never quote. You call female supremacy stupid. I feel the same way about male supremacists (even ones who say that their bigoted views only apply to sports and the like) and especially when their ‘arguments’ are presented from a position which more and more is coming to look like total ignorance. Unless you actually do know some real facts, and can tell us what they are, I think we’re done here.

 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Balanced good sense actually

September 23 2008, 12:10 AM 


So, please do what you intended but didn’t do in the first place: bring comparable results, say from a world championships, or the Olympics, or even the USA nationals. Do it for a few categories not just for 56/62kg, and support your claim. Just a few lines one below the other: men-women.

You will see the obvious: women’s results are far below men’s. What might have fantasized is a misleading picture coming from the lower weights. The real thing is that competitive sport in general and weightlifting in particular is a system that has very concrete and limited goals. And grading every person on earth according to a strength table is not one of those goals. All it can do in this aspect is to perform a scouting and to attract lifters with good potential. Obviously it is hard to do in the lower weights. If within the current trend of average body weight increase, X% of adult men (world wide) still weight below 56kg, and from this X% one has to scout people willing to become competitive sportsmen, then it’s not an easy task to get a big pool. And since the system has to invest (in the end it boils down to money) in this pool, the whole thing starts to shrink. Countries/regions that have strong public organizations (state as the most evident example) to support it can do something to keep it wide enough. But even they can’t fight the average body weight increase trend.

Who can have any doubts that a plateau in weightlifting will be reached? It’s obvious. No one can lift 1000kg. Here’s an out of the hat upper bound for you. Obviously the real bound is much less than 1000kg, but who would argues that it exists. No less obvious that such bounds exist for any other sport. So what’s the problem? You think that men had already reached it, or reaching it now? That might be so indeed. On the other hand it might be not. But if someone says that women’s bound is close or equal or higher than men’s – then it’s just nonsense.

Open water swimming… As for weightlifting, do the simplest thing: write here a few results (in this event) from the latest Olympics. Men-women. Do you see here any trace of the so called “big gapped world record” held by women in say swimming across various Channels? No. Why? Because when it comes to the Olympics (and its ilk) it ceases to be what is sometimes called “self-propelled” sport. And when this happens – men show higher results than women.

“75% better endurance than male” – again a simple misuse of words. You take some specific terms and concepts used in a research and give them a different meaning. Do you really know what and how exactly was this research checking? Do you understand its methodology, its theoretical basis, the interpretation of its results? Catchy headlines have nothing to do with science. “75% better endurance” has a certain meaning in one particular research, and to grasp it one has to understand the field. What is left without this understanding? What does “75% better endurance” means not in scientific but in everyday’s language? Nothing, yet everything. Everything you want to put into it, hence nothing in real life. So, lets hear your opinion: what do YOU think “75% better endurance” means? Give a real life situation, and say: I think that in this situation we will see how “75% better endurance” shows itself.

As for the facts:

FACT: women have not overtaken men in any sport.
FACT: they get no closer to men in any sport.

If anyone has to bring facts, it’s you. And comparing USA men to world women won’t do. That’s all you did so far. Do better, and we’ll see if you can support your fantasy claims.


 
 Respond to this message   
sage
(Login sage7777777)

Last time I'm saying this

September 23 2008, 12:13 PM 

Gee, I’m getting really tired of saying this (and apologies to others who don’t need to see it three times to understand it):
Thirty years ago the best male weightlifters in the WORLD, regularly lifted 50% more, per pound of bodyweight, than the best female weightlifters in the WORLD AVERAGED OVER ALL THE BODYWEIGHT CATEGORIES. Now the best male weightlifters in the WORLD lift only 20% more than the best female weightlifters in the WORLD AVERAGED OVER ALL THE BODYWEIGHT CATEGORIES. Got it yet? – oh, please! The data is at:
http://www.iat.uni-leipzig.de/datenbanken/dbgwh/start.php
Take a look. If you can’t understand it, get someone to explain. Until then stop just posting it’s not true or only for 56kg or other rubbish when you have no idea at all.

Try reading that research rather than asking a million questions about it – it was at University of Colorado in May 05. You said: “measure what you like” so I did – nothing about all this real-life stuff. Typical – you make a silly generalisation. I prove it wrong, so you change it for, surprise surprise, another silly generalisation.

I really loved your “facts”!
“Fact” 1: Yes they have – Open water swimming. Honestly this isn’t even controversial. Most people know it, it doesn’t bother guys in the sport…
“Fact” 2: Yes, they are. Is this a joke? Everyone but you must know that women have been closing all the gaps. Look at the weightlifting, then move on to track and field, powerlifting, pool swimming, cycling, speed-skating. In almost every measurable sport women are catching up. (Our mighty forum owner Viktfar posted some interesting examples back in a thread called: “Fr all you skeptics” back on p2).

Well, thanks for those “facts”, Dave – haven’t laughed so much for a while. I bring in facts and references to support everything I say (remember all those numbers and percentages and URLs). You respond with something sophisticated, like, “Oh, no it’s not.” and zero facts and references to support it. If you can’t produce any at all (despite the quality humour) I’ve had enough of the mindless bigotry, I’m afraid.

 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

September 24 2008, 12:26 AM 

As expected you couldn’t bring any relevant numbers here. The reason is simple: they do not exist. So all you can do is useless empty talking.

Thirty years ago the best male weightlifters in the WORLD, regularly DID NOT lifted 50% more, per pound of bodyweight, than the best female weightlifters in the WORLD AVERAGED OVER ALL THE BODYWEIGHT CATEGORIES.

Why? Because the notion of BEST FEMALE WEIGHTLIFTERS thirty years ago is meaningless. Their pool was too small and their competition was too close to zero, to determine that. Is it big enough now? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But at least the field is now organized, and the notion of BEST now has a meaning.

And you actually gave yourself a good advice, which I am delighted to reproduce here:

“If you can’t understand it, get someone to explain. Until then stop just posting your 30 years old comparisons or other rubbish when you have no idea at all.”

From your advice to read the research I see that you did not understand any of it, otherwise based on it you could give your own example of a real life situation where this 75% would clearly show itself. So, take your advice once more: get someone to explain the research.

You proved something? What and where? Very funny to hear accusations in silly generalizations from someone who makes silly generalizations about women surpassing men in sports.

Facts… Again, you bring many words, but no numbers. No forums examples are needed here. Take the open water swimming. Some of it was in the latest Olympics. Go to any site that has the last Olympics results in that event. If your “fact” that women hold the world records in this field was actually a fact – we would see something of that in the Olympic results as well. Alas, we do not see it.

So all you bring is merely “facts”. Try FACTS for once. When you do so you see this FACT:

FACT: women have not overtaken men in any sport.

So, until you are able to bring a few rows of real numbers, please go on with your silliness to amuse the readers of this forum.





 
 Respond to this message   
sage
(Login sage7777777)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

September 24 2008, 12:11 PM 

I gave you some information I know is true. Because it doesn’t fit with your ignorant chauvinist opinions, you say it’s wrong or false, even though you know nothing about it. When I give you the source, so you can check, you refuse.

I do not post false statements nor wrong data. Ever. There would be absolutely no point. I will not discuss with someone who calls me a liar.

 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

September 25 2008, 4:35 AM 

If you use the term information to denote knowledge about reality, then you obviously gave no information so far. Maybe you indented to, but didn’t have enough time yet. No rush, take your time. If on the other hand, by information you mean knowledge about someone’s fantasy world, then you indeed gave plenty of it.

And I’m totally for it: fiction, science fiction, etc. Not for all genres, but for quite a few of them, yours included. Although all of them are hermetically sealed by a fantasy stamp, that stamp IS the crucial feature that makes them so enjoyable. So, if you change your mind and decide to dig deeper into fantasies, please go on, don’t be discouraged by anyone's posts. Argument, contradictions, clashes – all are good and welcome. Whenever different people stop writing opposing posts - boredom starts its rule.

 
 Respond to this message   
MMART
(no login)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 19 2008, 3:57 AM 

the reason women hold the records in long distance swimming ( and big deal by the way)is because they have more bodyfat and therefore are both better insulated due to their excess blubber and are more bouyant. That is a fact. I'd rather be a lean muscuklar guy and be better in all sports than a fat slob and be good at swimming in cold water

 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 21 2008, 12:26 AM 

Well, this "women record holding" is a good fantasy. It would seem rather strange if people who write here think that it is not a good fantasy. For, if they really think so, why bother writing here?

Yet, no matter how good it is, it still remains a fantasy. In reality women do not hold swimming records - neither for short nor for long distances. It's obvious for the short ones, and as for the long ones, body fat has little to do with it. Thing is very simple: English Channel crossing/ocean swimming/etc. is not a real worldwide organized sport yet, (there are no national/regional/world championships, it's not in the Olympics, etc.) hence it can have no records - by definition. When organized competitions start taking place, when they attract hundreds and thousands of participants, then and only then real records appear - and this is obviously true for any sport.

Actually a small version of such swimming (not the exact real thing, but something that may develop to it in the future when distances grow and water conditions come closer to open ones) already took place in the 2008 Olympics: a sort of open water swimming in a special channel. One can check the official results: as expected women's are behind men's.

As for the fantasy it remains a good one.

 
 Respond to this message   
Sage
(Login sage7777777)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 24 2008, 11:15 AM 

Yeah, hi Mmart. I've heard this explanation before and I'm not sure - men can have as much body fat as they want. How come fat men don't get those records? I think it also has something to do with the fact that women's muscle is better for endurance (check out the research mentioned in this thread and elsewhere on the board). This also explains why women are already as fast as men in ultra-marathon running (for thin people only) and may soon be faster.

 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 25 2008, 12:52 AM 

..."This also explains why women are already as fast as men in ultra-marathon"...

Fantasy needs no explanation. That's the beauty of it. When you do try to explain it, you just ruin everything, since your so called "explanation" miserably fails, and you are left with nothing, because you kill the fantasy as well. Ultra marathon records show a huge gap between men's and women's record times. The gap grows with distance. Two examples below, and there are many more, as it's the same for any ultra race - men hold all records:

==================================================================

Badwater Ultramarathon Race Results, 2000-2008

COURSE RECORDS:
Men’s: Valmir Nunes, 2007, Brazil: 22:51:29.
Women’s: Jamie Donaldson, 2008, USA: 26:51:33.

Source: http://www.badwater.com/results/index.html

================================================================

Tussey Mountainback, USA 50 Mile Championships

COURSE RECORDS:
Men's: Chad Ricklefs, 2004, 5:53:37
Women’s: Anne Lundblad, 6:36

Source: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:tVNXtYwo_ZoJ:www.centredaily.com/sports/story/896634.html+ultra-marathon+record+time+men+women&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

================================================================

 
 Respond to this message   
Sage
(Login sage7777777)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 26 2008, 1:53 PM 

Dave! For the first time, that’s information! Real data, not just unreasoned and unsupported opinion. Well done! – I’m happy to talk with you when you give me something real to discuss. Because you only give a few results though, I’m afraid your conclusions are misleading. A man holds the Badwater record, yes, but that race has been won by women in recent years, even though far more men than women enter. This year a man won the race, but there were 7 women in the top 12, even though only 21 of 80 entrants were female. Women have won two of the last eight races held, even though only about one in five entrants were female. These figures suggest that women are actually doing better than men, but hey, that’s only one race.

Luckily we don’t need to search around for lots of individual results from other races because the performance of large numbers of ultramarathon runners has been scientifically analysed by Bam et. al. (this is the performance of real runners in real races, not lab tests). Where men run faster than women over distances under 90km, at longer distances there’s no difference. Bam et. Al conclude this is because women ‘have greater fatigue resistance’, which relates, as I said, to their better muscle endurance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9044230

 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 27 2008, 8:00 AM 

Sage,

No need to wait for anyone's responses in order to see the obvious: contrary to what you say ("...women are already as fast as men in ultra-marathon..."), in reality women are way behind men as far as athletic results are concerned. There are no athletic events , i.e events in which results are measured in kilograms/seconds/meters in which women's records surpass men's. Not even one. Based on this the following is statement is absolutely true: men hold ALL records in athletics. This is a simple fact, and as long as you can't disprove it your claims are worthless. Of course, worthless unless they belong to a fantasy world, since there they are indeed in their right place. And for that matter, events such as "Crossing the English Channel" cannot be considered as athletic competitions with records. To become one such an event needs a stricter definition for: 1. the exact distance; 2. the starting and ending points; 3. similar conditions for all competitors.

So, all you need to do in order to support your claim (as long as you want it to refer to the real world) is to find one such event. When you do, please post here your findings. Good luck!!!!

 
 Respond to this message   
Sage
(Login sage7777777)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 27 2008, 1:21 PM 

Women are as fast as men in longer distance ultramarathon running. The evidence is given to you above and it seems you're not able to challenge it.

Competitive long distance swimming follows all the conditions you list.

Women are faster than men in long distance swimming and have just caught up with them in ultramarathon running. This is the real world. Why don’t you join us here?


 
 Respond to this message   
dave
(no login)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 28 2008, 12:51 AM 

All your statements are false. Here goes, one by one:

1. "Women are as fast as men in longer distance ultramarathon running" - False. Men hold ALL running records = men run faster than women in any distance. The gap in the longer distances just grows. See Badwater: the gap equals 4 hours. If 4 hours is not a huge gap then what is?

2. "The evidence is given to you above and it seems you're not able to challenge it" - False. No evidence is given for your claims. All records point against it, and YOU are not able to challenge it. To do so, all you need is to bring ONE women's athletic record which is higher than men's. You can't do that. Or can you?

3. "Competitive long distance swimming follows all the conditions you list" - False. If you think it is, then please show it. You can start by showing the exact distance (in meters) for which women's record is beter than men's. Can you do that?

4. "Women are faster than men in long distance swimming" - False, as already said above.

5. "and have just caught up with them in ultramarathon running" - False, as men hold ALL records.

6. "This is the real world" - False, as athletic records show.

7. "Why don’t you join us here?" - I prefer to make a sharp distinction between real world and fantasy. As long your claims belong to fantasy, I can fully accept them. But when you try to put them into the real world, then it's a big NO.

 
 Respond to this message   
Sage
(Login sage7777777)

Re: Last time I'm saying this

October 29 2008, 9:48 AM 

Dave, men hold the ultramarathon records because typically 5-10 of them enter a race for every woman. The average speeds of elite men and women over long distances are about the same. (Example: In this year’s Badwater, the average time of the 21 women (who all finished the race) was slightly faster than that of the 52 men who finished – not even counting the 7 men who didn’t.) Do you have the math to understand this? – it’s pretty elementary.

Let me explain how arguments work. I said women are as fast as men at ultramarathon. You disagreed and challenged this by posting four numbers – fair enough. I then posted a larger body of evidence, which shows they are. What you need to do next is to challenge that evidence. The Badwater is one of the best known and most prestigious races in the world – top elite male runners queue up to take part. If you think women are “way behind men” you need to explain how they have won this race more than once and how they took seven of the top twelve places this year. And you need to read that scientific paper and explain why your four numbers are worth more than a controlled study of large numbers of athletes by experts in the field. If you could do this, we might have an interesting discussion. If you can’t do it, you lose – that’s how arguments work. You may not understand this but others will.

Anyway you’re back to just repeating your opinions with no evidence to support them. I’ve heard it all before and it’s boring by now. Unless someone else posts, I’m giving up on this thread, which has gone off topic in any case. Thanks for all your posts here.

 
 Respond to this message   
Siva
(no login)

wow

October 29 2008, 11:20 PM 

wow....this forum ceirtainly brings back nostalgic memories.Firstly i would like to say kudos to dave and sage for saving this forum from being a place for "girls beating boys" clip dump spot and spam.It's refreshing to read new arguements.....
Firstly sage...i would say that girls today are stronger compared to girls of the past.I wont elaborate because im almost sure everyone agrees.The question is...are they as strong or stronger than men?.I dont think so

Before i start my arguements,i would like to say that if u look at team events...i would bravely say that no womens team has beaten a mans team in all sports.Now if women are stronger as individuals and have "75%" more endurance than men..than surely they would have owned the mens team with no problems...for example look at football,rugby,basketball,hockey,cricet,baseball and others,there are no female athelets that come close to matching their male counterparts.So if ur claim is true..then again why are women not displaying any of those strength or endurance in these events?

Next on individual sports.Ur examples JUST focus on weightlifting and long distance swimming.Dave has given some good points on those.For weightlifting..basicly your post only shows that women are stronger compared to women of the past which we can agree on.Just because more women lift weights today,does not meen that they are stronger than men,but more capable of lifting compared to women of the past.so logically if men could lift 50% more than women in the past,it's because of lack of female weightlifters....and now when women are lifting heavier weights,it shows that the women are stronger than women of the past and not men...u say that now men can only lift 20% more than women today...but its not because of the men's strength decreasing,it's simply because of the volume of female weightlifters have increased...but still cant beat men.

And sage alot of female athletes use testosterone hormones to boost their strength and performance...so they are not naturally stronger,but are using "male" hormones to try and compete with men.,ironic.

As i previously mentioned,ur examples are only limited to 2 sports.AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT JUST BECAUSE SOME WOMEN CAN BEAT SOME MEN IN AN INDIVIDUAL SPORT,THAT DOES NOT MEEN THAT THE WHOLE FEMALE SEX IS GETTING STRONGER EXPONENTIALLY..IT JUST SHOWS THAT SOME WOMEN ARE BETTER THAN SOME MEN in some areas of a sport.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement