Posted on 06/14/2019 3:52:38 AM PDT by C19fan
“Women with too much testosterone. There, I said it. Sue me.”
Try a Kentucky Fried Chicken store in Memphis on a Saturday night.
“Maybe it’s the uniforms; mannish uniforms could bring about more mannish mannerisms. The bun huggers we wore in college were not mannish at all, neither were any of my teammates.”
While surely a major factor, I think there is more. Most tennis babes at least give the allure of femininity. The soccer gals seem to have way too much testosterone and angst. I tried ONCE to watch lingerie football. While marginally attractive in their underwear and makeup, those were actually some very aggressive butch women. Men typically prefer women to be feminine, even if they are doing manly things. Some women care about that, some don’t.
When was soccer ever watchable?
What does this team do? Is it softball? Bowling? Archery? What and why should we care?
This guy is a dork, no doubt. Any guy who says “I’m a feminist” as he does in his article is an ignorant ass.
But the fundamental truth he highlights is correct. Women’s sports are generally second tier competitions when compared to men’s competition, except for things like figure skating.
Even the point about tennis may be somewhat valid due to the overpowering comparative professional difficulty of returning a men’s serve in tennis. The majority of professional male tennis players would have little trouble returning the serve of a top female tennis player, while even the top female tennis players would be consistently unable to return the average serve of the top male players. And that is just the serve. The male volleys are harder and better placed as well. As a result of all this, it is observed that volleys in women’s tennis may be a bit longer. But the best female versus the best male is not even a contest.
And that is about it. Women simply cannot compete at top levels with men in any sport where speed, strength, or endurance are the contributing factors. It isn’t sexist to say that. It is reality. In the running world, the average male time of four hours and 29 minutes remains faster than the average female time of four hours and 59 minutes. At the very top of the pyramid in events like the Boston Marathon, the male winner finished in 2:07 and the female winner finished in 2:23. That is a 16 minute difference in a sport where the difference between first and second place has been measured in milliseconds. 38 men crossed the finish line before the fastest woman.
This is not sexism. It is reality.
Except for sexism (watching simply because they are women) or knowing someone who is competing, why would someone watch a sport with females preferentially over the same sport with men playing? Nobody with any with any sports acumen would. It is a waste of time.
The concept of paying men and women the same for playing the same sport? If they compete directly...of course. If not, that is absurd. But how many real sports do women and men compete in head-to-head? Virtually none. Because men and women cannot compete head-to-head in physical contests. They simply can’t.
Sports is the ultimate meritocracy. That is why many people enjoy it. In the end, it is that finishing time in the foot race, not the attractiveness, likeability, connections, moneyed background, or anything else that counts. It is that stark difference in performance that cannot be faked, wished away, or legislated.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I've been following that, but the problem has been with rainouts. I was really looking forward to the India - New Zealand match, but it was washed out.
Soccer is hockey on grass on a bigger area without sticks and with a ball, where you can admire your surroundings at any given point, get a good stretch, take a bite of food, and look up without missing much of anything.
That makes it unwatchable for me.
Exactly!
Soccer would be basically basketball played by soccer players.
It would kill the game if you removed the offside rule.
I think if you spot a camel toe you should drink as well, which might make it easier to see even more of them!
” . . . Orrin Hatch calling for equal pay for the U.S. women’s national soccer team.”
Don’t know how great the pay differential is, but I’d suggest the men’s team and the women’s team play each for that difference in compensation (but I’d make sure there’s a slaughter rule in place).
This won’t last long when the Trannie’s start playing in the women’s leagues.
Dude’s missing the obvious solution. All those guys who can’t quite make the major men’s teams just identify as women.
YES...I agree. I wish they were NOT invited to Whitehouse too...invite SCHOLARS instead!
Look at the pictures in the article you posted. The boys are all a head taller than the women. They are not "boys;" they are young men. And they would have been decisively bigger, stronger and faster than the women. Which is why the U.S. women's soccer team, like other top women's teams around the world, scrimmages from time to time with boy's teams. You learn and develop by playing people who are stronger than you.
By the way, people who bring up this game -- and the boo birds do, with regularity -- really should not make reference to a "squad from high school." This was an Academy team. These are elite level players. Most of them were probably two years away from playing D1 college soccer, and some of them will be professionals before long.
I do not know if that game was played before or after U.S. Soccer changed its age rules. Competitive soccer has now shifted to a calendar year basis; all the players born in 2019 are in the same class. The old method, still used by hard core holdouts in rec leagues, tends to align with school age determinations. All players below, say, age 15 as of August 1 or whatever magic date you want to pick, will be deemed U15 for the next soccer year. Which means they will turn 16 during their U15 year.
It should not come as a surprise to you that elite level male athletes, at 15 and 16 years of age, will physically dominate adult women in athletic competition. I doubt the "skill level" was much of a factor. The boys would have won all the 50/50 balls and most of the 60/40 balls, and many of the 70/30 balls, simply because they were faster. Soccer is a "no contact" sport the way basketball is a no contact sports, which means the boys would have knocked the women off the ball with ease. The chance that the women might score on a breakaway would be approximately zero, as the boys would have had the speed to run the play down; a boy on a breakaway would have been uncatchable.
And IMHO, aside from speed, the biggest difference between men's and women's soccer is that the women don't have the leg strength to shoot effectively from distance. The goalkeepers are good; you have to fire a bullet to beat them from long range, and women just don't get that much oomph behind the ball. Yes, there are a few long range goals in women's soccer, but those usually involve a redirection at the goal mouth, and in a few instances the goalkeeper gets screened and doesn't see the shot. Men can shoot from distance. That changes the whole complexion of the game. The women have to work the ball in for closer shots, and bunkering is more effective for the defenses. Huge difference.
I gather that the U.S. women scrimmage against elite boys teams with some regularity. The Dallas game got a lot of publicity because they lost. But the fact is, such games are good practices precisely because the women are at a distinct physical disadvantage. That forces them to play with greater precision to offset the physical factors.
It would be interesting if an academic studying gender differences in athletic performance rounded up all such scrimmages from around the world (the USWNT isn't the only women's team that does this) and broke out the results by age and caliber of the opponent. How do the top international women's teams do against U15 as opposed to U16 and U17 boys teams? How steep is the decline curve, in terms of results? How far can they go before the games become too non-competitive to matter? No top women's international soccer team, for example, would dream of going out and having a serious scrimmage against their country's men's national team. They might kick the ball around for fun and do a little co-rec stuff, but they know better than to think they would be competitive enough to gain anything from such a scrimmage. Just as Serena Williams probably practices against men regularly, but would not dream of actually entering a men's tournament.
“I think it would be nice if the whole world got over the delusion that sports are important.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! MONEY QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!
Turn the TV off and hit the bricks! Do aerobics, do strength training, do pickup basketball & when you do, you’ve accomplished something. Better that than watching pro athletes make millions.
And for the life of the mind, forget spectator sports and start following politics.
Sports outcomes affect no one.
Poltical outcomes can affect everyone.
Perhaps it will be more fast paced and enjoyable is they hire some guy players
Guys who dislike WATCHING sports but love chix will LOVE this sports channel, omg..!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChuulyyrq3ixbxixG0iaAhw
Watch and in 1 min you will agree.
You mean watching kick ball is boring???
When I kid my Costa Rican granddaughter about how boring kick ball is, she snaps back “yeah, not exciting like “hand-egg” where they play for 20 seconds and then stand around.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.