Male vs Female Boxing: Comparing Strengths

[newjerseyrunner]

I was in a discussion recently about Rhonda Rousey. We were debating whether or not she could beat a man in a fight. Now I'm purely discussing the theory of her fighting a man about the same size as her with an equal amount of training. Obviously she'd obliterate a normal man in a fight, but get destroyed herself by someone like Tyson who outweighed her by 100 pounds.

I've done martial arts for 20 years, both upright sparring and grappling. In terms of pure fighting, there is little advantage to being male. While men tend to be significantly stronger, the amount of leverage used in martial arts quickly nullifies that. The styles I've done and taught tend to be about fighting with intelligence, in which I've determined that men and women are on essentially a level playing field in that respect.

Boxing is different than a street fight or self defense because both sides are well trained I maintain that the physical advantages of being male would make her a significant underdog, but it got me wondering how great the advantage would really be?

Men can easily out benchpress any women of similar size and physique, but boxing is about fast twitch muscles, not slow ones. How much stronger are those? Women tend not to be able to break as many boards/cinder blocks as their male counterparts, but I wonder how much of that is bias based on my particular students just being timid and holding back, men tend to be more brutish and simply try and then get used to bigger breaks. I've seen female masters break just as much as I can, but then again, I've watched male masters break significantly more than I can.

I know that reaction time in men is also slightly faster than women's on average, does this advantage increase or decrease as training increases? In self defense, there is little difference because the reaction time of a trained person will always be better than someone not. In upright sparing, I'd hesitate to judge because my students and fellow students never had the level of training of a professional, their skill levels aren't as close as two professionals.

Are there any other major differences for either side when it comes to out ability to box?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

We were debating whether or not she could beat a man in a fight. Now I'm purely discussing the theory of her fighting a man about the same size as her with an equal amount of training.

Of course she could. What you want to debate is the probability or constancy as which she could beat a man. It might be less than a male counterpart, but her being a women doesn't make her a little puppy. I play coed soccer every week and although I have the physical advantage most times against women, they beat me reasonably often.

 

[dipole]

Of course she could. What you want to debate is the probability or constancy as which she could be a man. It might be less than a male counterpart, but her being a women doesn't make her a little puppy. I play coed soccer every week and although I have the physical advantage most times against women, they beat me reasonably often.

Soccer isn't fighting... there's a reason sports are divided by gender. Women don't play men in Rugby, basketball, or any other major professional sport. Men are genetically inclined to be physically stronger and larger than women. That's a fact of life. I've never done much sparing, so I can't speak from experience, but I'd say it's a pretty fair bet that all else being equal in terms of experience and skill level, a woman is not going to be able to beat a man in a fighting sport in most cases.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Correct, I should have specified I was talking about probability. Hell, if I were to fight Mike Tyson enough, I'd probably be able to choke him out at least once after being knocked out ten thousand times. I think there will always be a slight statistical advantage to a man in anything physical, I'm just wondering by how much. I would think the more physical, the more advantage men would have. Female vs male chess masters would probably go 50/50, WNBA teams vs NBA teams would probably go more like 1/99, volleyball would probably be somewhere in between.

I also actually played soccer once a week, and I've never seen a major difference in either sex's abilities, but I don't think it's a fair analogy. Soccer is much more of an intellectual game, it's about strategy, knowing when to dribble, pass, shoot... and in that aspect there'd be no discernible advantage to either sex. Think about this though, 88 minutes of the game is played like that, but 2 minutes of them the play is very different and most goals are scored during these plays: penalty kick, corner kick, and a throw in near the goal. Men have a clear advantage in all of those situation both from our ability to kick and throw faster and further, but also our ability to jump to head the ball in or out. I played indoor soccer, where actually none of that mattered so I think it was even more even than outdoor soccer would be. When you said coed, did you mean men and women intermixed or men vs women? In high school, our men and women teams played each other and the men won more than the women (granted these are teenagers and not physically or mentally adults.) 1 on 1 they seem equal (which is why I probably saw no difference when we played intermixed), as a group the boys seemed to have an advantage, I'm not completely sure why, I would think it's because of those 2 critical minutes. I also was trying to specify that I'm referring to the upper limit of ability: in soccer that'd be like World Cup players, not guys like us.

@Greg Bernhardt you did make me think deeper about what specifically men's physical advantages are and I take back what I said about punching power. While I think men can hit significantly harder than women when everything else is equal, but at the level I'm discussing (world class, best in the world level) the power of the punch is much less important than it's precision. Most KO punches, would still have been a KO punch if it had 10% less power.

Shouldn't there be a Darwinian reason for men to be better fighters? Male primates physically fight more than females, or do you think that gets canceled out with skill since there were no world class fighters back then.

 

[Hornbein]

I was in a discussion recently about Rhonda Rousey. We were debating whether or not she could beat a man in a fight. Now I'm purely discussing the theory of her fighting a man about the same size as her with an equal amount of training.

Let's look at tennis. Venus Williams, ranked #1 at the time, challenged a man ranked #125 or so. He defeated her easily. Men are quicker on their feet and hit much harder. This would be even more of an advantage in boxing than in tennis, I would think.

A girl sued to be allowed to play high school football. She suffered internal injuries, for which her parents sued the school.

A sport where women can compete equally with men or even have an advantage might be rock climbing. Low weight is more important than strength. Flexibility and small fingers are an advantage. Lynn Hill was one of the best rock climbers, and men found it very difficult to repeat her routes. It might be one of those sports where the ideal body is that of a ten-year-old girl.

Then there are "sports" like automobile racing, where women already have parity.

 

[dipole]

Let's look at tennis. Venus Williams, ranked #1 at the time, challenged a man ranked #125 or so. He defeated her easily. Men are quicker on their feet and hit much harder. This would be even more of an advantage in boxing than in tennis, I would think.

A girl sued to be allowed to play high school football. She suffered internal injuries, for which her parents sued the school.

A sport where women can compete equally with men or even have an advantage might be rock climbing. Low weight is more important than strength. Flexibility and small fingers are an advantage. Lynn Hill was one of the best rock climbers, and men found it very difficult to repeat her routes. It might be one of those sports where the ideal body is that of a ten-year-old girl.

Then there are "sports" like automobile racing, where women already have parity.

I'm not challenging your authenticity, but could you provide links/references to these two anecdotes?

 

[Hornbein]

I'm not challenging your authenticity, but could you provide links/references to these two anecdotes?

The Venus Williams thing should be very, very easy to find.

As to the high school girl that shouldn't be very hard either. It was over a decade ago, and I don't feel like looking for it.

 

[dipole]

Well don't make claims then if you aren't willing to provide sources. Anyways, I found this article about notable Men v.s. Women tennis matches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

It seems in the majority of cases where there was no handicap given the the female player, the male player won.

There are definitely athletic sports where Women can compete or even excel against men - but not in sports where strength and speed are very important. If you doubt the speed thing, take a look at these numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres#All-time_top_25_men

The fastest woman's time is slower than the 25th fastest men's time.

 

[dlgoff]

From what I've seen over the years (not necessarily boxing) is that a well placed punch, whether coming from a male or female, can cause a knockout. To me, the one throwing the knockout punch is the best ... for that bout.

 

[Choppy]

Shouldn't there be a Darwinian reason for men to be better fighters?

Thank your grandmothers.

According to the work cited below, the reason people live longer than other primates is because at some point in our evolutionary history grandmothers began gathering food to help feed weaning toddlers. This freed up young mothers to have more children. Hence, longer-lived grandmothers conveyed a reproductive advantage and this led to an effective doubling of the human lifespan beyond the reproductive years for women.

However this also led to more men in the population, who were (from an evolutionary standpoint) fertile through their entire lifespan. More men in the "able to reproduce" pool meant competition for fertile women. This condition led to the phenomenon of mate guarding where males would guard their female mate against other potential suitors. Those males who successfully guarded their mates also had a reproductive advantage in that they would have more offspring than those who didn't.

So it would seem to me, if you have more males than females and mate-guarding behavior, you're going to have more males than females fighting each other.

I suspect this translates into such odd modern day behaviours as stepping into a boxing ring to determine which competitor will sustain the lesser degree of the head injuries they will both inevitably receive.

For reference:

Grandmothers making people pair up.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150907190633.htm

Grandmothers feeding grandchildred lead to extended lifespans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121023204142.htm

 

[newjerseyrunner]

From what I've seen over the years (not necessarily boxing) is that a well placed punch, whether coming from a male or female, can cause a knockout. To me, the one throwing the knockout punch is the best ... for that bout.

Agreed, what I'm wondering is: are men more precise fighters? Did our brains evolve to perform slightly better in a physical confrontation? Almost certainly yes to both questions, but is there a point at which skill can nullify the advantage completely?

@Choppy, very interesting.

 

[Student100]

Agreed, what I'm wondering is: are men more precise fighters? Did our brains evolve to perform slightly better in a physical confrontation? Almost certainly yes to both questions, but is there a point at which skill can nullify the advantage completely?

@Choppy, very interesting.

You're confusing a sport for fighting, they aren't equivalent.

This question is difficult to follow exactly what the point of discussion is.

 

[MAAntonius]

Avid fan of USA Boxing here, just a few comments.

Men can easily out benchpress any women of similar size and physique, but boxing is about fast twitch muscles, not slow ones.

This may seem contrary to intuition, but heavy bench press (or any heavy, compound lift) recruits more fast twitch muscle than slow by a huge margin. Slow twitch is almost exclusively used to govern endurance activities; as such, both are very important to the boxer. A marathoner cares little about his fast twitch, relatively, and a sprinter or shotputter cares little about her slow twitch. Who throws the stronger punch?

That is to say, don't let the obese, aesthetically unpleasant powerlifter types lead you to think lifting is equivalent to slow. Many of the fastest and most explosive athletes lift very heavy and haven't been slowed down by it.

Are there any other major differences for either side when it comes to out ability to box?

This is very anecdotal, but within my varied experiences with Crossfit and boxing I've seen women have consistently higher pain tolerances than most men. Males might be genetically much more disposed to powerlifting or Olympic lifting and the types of training (three to five rep maxes) therein, but once the "struggle" of the sport stretches beyond 30-60 seconds, it is an exceptional guy who can keep going alongside the females. That said, a male may achieve heavier weights/faster times/et al, but is more likely to gas out after a number rounds of exertion.

All that to conclude that if a female boxer had amazing footwork and agility, as well as reach and dimensions in the same ballpark as her male competitor, she could very likely tire him out granted she didn't take too many hard hits early in the fight.

One guy's opinion...
-MAA

 

[Rick21383]

Rhonda against a random guy in a bar with no fighting experience? Yes she would probably win.

Rhonda against literally any male UFC fighter in the flyweight division (125 pounds)? Not a chance. She would be obliterated within the first round. Check out the sparring match with Gegard Mousasi. He playfully tosses her around AT WILL like a ragdoll.

The thing is, Rhonda is not even a GREAT fighter. The social justice warriors are hyping her up as this unstoppable force that can crush anyone, including guys and it's just not even close. Her judo is world class but her striking is terrible and, unfortunately, there just aren't any other females out there yet to compete at that level.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The Venus Williams thing should be very, very easy to find.

As to the high school girl that shouldn't be very hard either. It was over a decade ago, and I don't feel like looking for it.

On this forum if you make a claim and someone asks for citations you are expected to back up said claim. "Can't be bothered" isn't a valid excuse.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Agreed, what I'm wondering is: are men more precise fighters? Did our brains evolve to perform slightly better in a physical confrontation? Almost certainly yes to both questions, but is there a point at which skill can nullify the advantage completely?

Why bring brains into this? It's fact that men are on average taller and stronger than women. Skill can obviously overcome this natural advantage, as can luck. Asking whether or not a female professional fighter could beat a male professional fighter purely on strength/mass is like asking if a heavyweight male fighter could beat a middle weight male in the same sport.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Rhonda against a random guy in a bar with no fighting experience? Yes she would probably win.

Rhonda against literally any male UFC fighter in the flyweight division (125 pounds)? Not a chance. She would be obliterated within the first round. Check out the sparring match with Gegard Mousasi. He playfully tosses her around AT WILL like a ragdoll.

The thing is, Rhonda is not even a GREAT fighter. The social justice warriors are hyping her up as this unstoppable force that can crush anyone, including guys and it's just not even close. Her judo is world class but her striking is terrible and, unfortunately, there just aren't any other females out there yet to compete at that level.

It sounds to me, and to a lot of comments on here and in other forums, that people are concluding that women are incapable of being great athletes because somehow the benchmark of world-class athletes is the performance of the male athlete.

To me, the very question of whether Rhonda Rousey can compete effectively against a male professional fighter is silly to begin with, because fundamentally female UFC fighting and male UFC fighting should be thought as two distinct sports, in much the same sense that male heavyweight boxing is a different type of sport to male bantamweight boxing. A male bantamweight boxer cannot effectively compete against a male heavyweight boxer, but does that mean that somehow the bantamweight boxer is a worse boxer than his heavyweight counterpart? The answer to that is an absolute no! They are different, one is not better than the other.

As far as whether Rhonda is a great fighter -- well, is she a great fighter compared to other female fighters in her class? That's the comparison you should be looking at.

 

[WWGD]

Men have had better running times in Marathons: http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/ ; the difference in times for both marathons seems to have stabilized, at around 12-13 minutes. I wonder if the 2hr barrier will ever be crossed, or if it is a sort of natural barrier/limit.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Again, just from the discussion I'm reading here, the conclusion that I'm drawing is that somehow, because female athletes are unlikely to effective complete against male athletes in the same sport (the example here is boxing, but certainly examples from marathon running and tennis was brought up), that somehow female athletes are inferior to male athletes, and somehow women in sports are not worth paying attention to in comparison to men in sports.

That seems to me to be a disturbing conclusion. Granted, I fully admit that I don't pay attention to any sports outside of the Olympics (both summer and winter -- and I pay equal attention to both male and female athletes in Olympics) and perhaps the FIFA World Cup, so my perspective is skewed.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, just from the discussion I'm reading here, the conclusion that I'm drawing is that somehow, because female athletes are unlikely to effective complete against male athletes in the same sport (the example here is boxing, but certainly examples from marathon running and tennis was brought up), that somehow female athletes are inferior to male athletes, and somehow women in sports are not worth paying attention to in comparison to men in sports.

That seems to me to be a disturbing conclusion.

I'm not seeing that. Are you sure you aren't reading into it something that isn't there?

 

[Hornbein]

Again, just from the discussion I'm reading here, the conclusion that I'm drawing is that somehow, because female athletes are unlikely to effective complete against male athletes in the same sport (the example here is boxing, but certainly examples from marathon running and tennis was brought up), that somehow female athletes are inferior to male athletes, and somehow women in sports are not worth paying attention to in comparison to men in sports.

That seems to me to be a disturbing conclusion. Granted, I fully admit that I don't pay attention to any sports outside of the Olympics (both summer and winter -- and I pay equal attention to both male and female athletes in Olympics) and perhaps the FIFA World Cup, so my perspective is skewed.

Female tennis players recently demanded prize money equal to the men, and got it.

If women athletes drew bigger crowds and sold more merchandise than the men, they would get paid more than the men. I feel certain that women gymnasts get better endorsement deals than the men. (Can you name a male gymnast? I can't.)

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'm not seeing that. Are you sure you aren't reading into it something that isn't there?

Perhaps I may be reading more into this than is warranted, but post from Rick21383 in this thread had me concerned that somehow Rhonda Rousey's accomplishments as an athlete was being downplayed because she is a female athlete. Also much of the discussion involve how Rhonda will fair against male athletes in her chosen sport, which to me rings false, as women's boxing/fighting is not the same as men's boxing/fighting (this is similar to the distinction I make between bantamweight vs heavyweight boxing).

 

[StatGuy2000]

Female tennis players recently demanded prize money equal to the men, and got it.

If women athletes drew bigger crowds than the men, they would get paid more than the men. I feel certain that women gymnasts get better endorsement deals than the men. (Can you name a male gymnast? I can't.)

Perhaps, but then again, how many gymnasts (male or female) can you name? The only gymnast I can name off the top of my head is Nadia Comaneci and that has more to do with her defection to the West.

 

[Hornbein]

Perhaps, but then again, how many gymnasts (male or female) can you name? The only gymnast I can name off the top of my head is Nadia Comaneci and that has more to do with her defection to the West.

OK. Nadia, Olga Korbut, Mary Lou Retton, Kim Zmescal, Okino, Ray, Kerri Strug. Olga Korbut was a sensation in the 70's and started the women's gymnastics trend. Mary Lou used to be on TV commercials endorsing batteries, so I imagine she got a good chunk of change out of that.

Men, I know zero.

 

[WWGD]

Again, just from the discussion I'm reading here, the conclusion that I'm drawing is that somehow, because female athletes are unlikely to effective complete against male athletes in the same sport (the example here is boxing, but certainly examples from marathon running and tennis was brought up), that somehow female athletes are inferior to male athletes, and somehow women in sports are not worth paying attention to in comparison to men in sports.

That seems to me to be a disturbing conclusion. Granted, I fully admit that I don't pay attention to any sports outside of the Olympics (both summer and winter -- and I pay equal attention to both male and female athletes in Olympics) and perhaps the FIFA World Cup, so my perspective is skewed.

I am sorry, but I think you're going of the deep end here. Men and women _are_ different. Not saying men are better or worse, just different, despite what some of the radical feminists would want you to believe. Enough of this, please. There are sports where strength is a deciding factor, in these sports men are at a disadvantage. And, unless most people have been brainwashed, at least here in the US, men's sports are much more popular than female sports. Enough with the PC, please, from both sides.

The woman's agenda has been distorted so far out of proportion, and it has engaged in such extreme cherry-picking, that it has taken away attention from actual, legitimate causes. And you barely ever hear about men's rights, so, please let's leave this out of this post -- or, if I could have my way, out of PF, except for an honest discussion of it.

 

[WWGD]

Female tennis players recently demanded prize money equal to the men, and got it.

If women athletes drew bigger crowds and sold more merchandise than the men, they would get paid more than the men. I feel certain that women gymnasts get better endorsement deals than the men. (Can you name a male gymnast? I can't.)

But they are less popular, play fewer games than men on average, and still draw the same pay. The average man must play more games in order to qualify for Wimbledon. PC gone amok:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2007/feb/22/allthingsnotequalatwimble

Now, time spent on the game alone may not be a perfect measure of the value provided, but until something better comes up, I would say it is the one we should go by. Can you propose something better?

 

[mheslep]

I was in a discussion recently about Rhonda Rousey. We were debating whether or not she could beat a man in a fight. Now I'm purely discussing the theory of her fighting a man about the same size as her with an equal amount of training. ...?

Follow the physics. Punching power is speed times mass delivered. So look at what's meant by "size". The engine is muscle mass. Women have 30 to 50 percent more percentage body fat than men in similar physical condition, so if you choose a same-body weight male opponent you still grant him more muscle mass. You'd have match the female with a considerably lighter male.

Also, the chance of knock out or knock down does away with bell curve outcomes here, as over a couple hundred punches outcomes would be lopsided under your conditions, in the same way that we don't see lightweights occasionally matching up with and beating heavies same sex.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I am sorry, but I think you're going of the deep end here. Men and women _are_ different. Not saying men are better or worse, just different, despite what some of the radical feminists would want you to believe. Enough of this, please. There are sports where strength is a deciding factor, in these sports men are at a disadvantage. And, unless most people have been brainwashed, at least here in the US, men's sports are much more popular than female sports. Enough with the PC, please, from both sides.

The woman's agenda has been distorted so far out of proportion, and it has engaged in such extreme cherry-picking, that it has taken away attention from actual, legitimate causes. And you barely ever hear about men's rights, so, please let's leave this out of this post -- or, if I could have my way, out of PF, except for an honest discussion of it.

First of all, if you had actually followed my earlier response to this thread, I specifically stated that men and women are different. I even went further and stated that male and female sports are different (for example women's boxing is not the same as men's boxing -- same as any other sport, such as women's soccer vs men's soccer) so comparing whether a female athlete can beat a male athlete is silly. So this notion of advantage versus disadvantage is ridiculous -- you are comparing apples and oranges. This is not a PC statement, nor does this have anything to do with the "women's agenda". In fact, I would argue that our opinions are not all that different.

 

[StatGuy2000]

OK. Nadia, Olga Korbut, Mary Lou Retton, Kim Zmescal, Okino, Ray, Kerri Strug. Olga Korbut was a sensation in the 70's and started the women's gymnastics trend. Mary Lou used to be on TV commercials endorsing batteries, so I imagine she got a good chunk of change out of that.

Men, I know zero.

You seem to know your (female) gymnasts, certainly better than me.

BTW, I just remembered one male gymnast, Marcel Nguyen from Germany, from the past Summer Olympics.

 

[WWGD]

First of all, if you had actually followed my earlier response to this thread, I specifically stated that men and women are different. I even went further and stated that male and female sports are different (for example women's boxing is not the same as men's boxing -- same as any other sport, such as women's soccer vs men's soccer) so comparing whether a female athlete can beat a male athlete is silly. So this notion of advantage versus disadvantage is ridiculous -- you are comparing apples and oranges. This is not a PC statement, nor does this have anything to do with the "women's agenda". In fact, I would argue that our opinions are not all that different.

OK, I grant you the first point, I misinterpreted your position on the difference, sorry,still, the statement to the effect that no comparisons are possible/reasonable does ( at least to me) send a red flag of PC (or maybe some extreme post-modern view), though maybe you meant something different. Would you not say that if the best 10 best-rated male ten players beat the 10 best- rated female players , say, 80 out of 100 games, that we would not conclude with high confidence that the male players were not better (or, viceversa, if women won by this margin)? We cannot take absolutely every variable into factor; it seems reasonable to assume that enough variables are , for all purposes, equal for both male and female players, when doing the ranking. Or maybe you want to do some Factor Analysis/PCA study , but until we do, I would say equality is a reasonable assumption.

 

[StatGuy2000]

OK, I grant you the first point, I misinterpreted your position on the difference, sorry,still, the statement to the effect that no comparisons are possible/reasonable does ( at least to me) send a red flag of PC (or maybe some extreme post-modern view), though maybe you meant something different. Would you not say that if the best 10 best-rated male ten players beat the 10 best- rated female players , say, 80 out of 100 games, that we would not conclude with high confidence that the male players were not better (or, viceversa, if women won by this margin)? We cannot take absolutely every variable into factor; it seems reasonable to assume that enough variables are , for all purposes, equal for both male and female players, when doing the ranking. Or maybe you want to do some Factor Analysis/PCA study , but until we do, I would say equality is a reasonable assumption

I see your point, but my contention is that due to the simple fact that men and women are different, comparing the two to determine which are better doesn't make sense. Ranking individual players on their ability has to be based on the respective sample population, which in the case of male athletes in a given sport, should be based on other male athletes in that exact same sport.

The analogy I would like to use is the difference between bantamweight boxing vs heavyweight boxing for men. If you pit the best-rated bantamweight boxer against the best-rated heavyweight boxer, I think it would be fair to say that the heavyweight boxer will beat the bantamweight boxer by a factor of, say, 80 out of 100 games (possibly higher). Would you then conclude that the heavyweight boxer is better than the bantamweight boxer? My argument is no, because you are not making a fair or even sensible comparison because of the difference in weight class -- the difference in weight class makes heavyweight boxing a different sport from bantamweight boxing. I think the same reasoning applies to male sports versus female sports.

 

[WWGD]

I see your point, but my contention is that due to the simple fact that men and women are different, comparing the two to determine which are better doesn't make sense. Ranking individual players on their ability has to be based on the respective sample population, which in the case of male athletes in a given sport, should be based on other male athletes in that exact same sport.

The analogy I would like to use is the difference between bantamweight boxing vs heavyweight boxing for men. If you pit the best-rated bantamweight boxer against the best-rated heavyweight boxer, I think it would be fair to say that the heavyweight boxer will beat the bantamweight boxer by a factor of, say, 80 out of 100 games (possibly higher). Would you then conclude that the heavyweight boxer is better than the bantamweight boxer? My argument is no, because you are not making a fair or even sensible comparison because of the difference in weight class -- the difference in weight class makes heavyweight boxing a different sport from bantamweight boxing. I think the same reasoning applies to male sports versus female sports.

Still, it seems, at least in the U.S, most have voted that , for the most part (large number of sports) they prefer to watch male sports over female sports. Now, one may want to control for certain variables, consider cultural factors/predispositions, but until that happens, it seems reasonable to conclude most people believe male sports are more entertaining, and, EDIT, as a whole, men are better in these sports than women are. Otherwise you get into a never-ending philosophical maze of technicalities in defining what you mean by better, etc.

 

[Hornbein]

Still, it seems, at least in the U.S, most have voted that , for the most part (large number of sports) they prefer to watch male sports over female sports. Now, one may want to control for certain variables, consider cultural factors/predispositions, but until that happens, it seems reasonable to conclude most people believe male sports are more entertaining.

Well, not really. When I was kid women's sports was funded badly. Women basketball players at road games had to sleep on the floor of the gym, coaches were paid almost nothing, etc. Title IX changed everything. Now we have a generation of female athletes who have little girls of their own and want to take them to a game. They'll pay to take their daughter to a WNBA game, will watch women's sports on TV, etc. Over time this will surely increase, and parity could happen. It may have already happened in US soccer. I hear a lot more about the women's game than the men. I know MIa Hamm but I don't know any men.

In short, the current imbalance may simply be due to tradition.

I was at UNC when the very highly touted men's basketball team self-destructed, while the neglected women's team unexpectedly won the NCAA championship. The women's team became the heroes of the campus, a sensation. They played a better game. It was very exciting. The men were embarrassing.

 

[WWGD]

Well, not really. When I was kid women's sports was funded badly. Women basketball players at road games had to sleep on the floor of the gym, coaches were paid almost nothing, etc. Title IX changed everything. Now we have a generation of female athletes who have little girls of their own and want to take them to a game. They'll pay to take their daughter to a WNBA game, will watch women's sports on TV, etc. Over time this will surely increase, and parity could happen. It may have already happened in US soccer. I hear a lot more about the women's game than the men. I know MIa Hamm but I don't know any men. The men were embarrassing.

In short, the current imbalance may simply be due to tradition.

I was at UNC when the very highly touted men's basketball team self-destructed, while the neglected women's team unexpectedly won the NCAA championship. The women's team became the heroes of the campus, a sensation. They played a better game. It was very exciting.

EDIT 2Sure, exciting if you were not in the men's team. And, my point is that " may be" is not strong enough to change a position; unless, until you have something better/stronger, it is just speculation.
Of course, there may always be lurking variables . But this applies to basically every aspect of life. And now the conditions of sports benefit women over men, where men have paid a price :https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS633US654&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=effects of title ix on men's sports . So now you may have to consider the negative effects of title IX on men's sports.
At least at the legal/court level, unless you can prove this variable has an effect, the default is that is not --- otherwise you end up with an infinite amount of "what ifs", and " maybes". You need something stronger than that, unless you are willing to be perpetually up-in-the-air.

My point is that you cannot perfectly control for all ( nor even large amount of variables ), so after you tried to do so, under certain assumptions, you draw a conclusion. Given upcoming information, you may change your conclusion, but not solely on maybes. Or remain a perpetual skeptic.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps I may be reading more into this than is warranted, but post from Rick21383 in this thread had me concerned that somehow Rhonda Rousey's accomplishments as an athlete was being downplayed because she is a female athlete.

Well, Rick said she's a world class athlete and then you apparently read him saying that she's not a world class athlete. So it looked pretty clear to me that you were seeing something that wasn't there:

Her judo is world class...

...people are concluding that women are incapable of being great athletes because somehow the benchmark of world-class athletes is the performance of the male athlete.

What was written and what you read seem to me to be exact opposites of each other.

Also much of the discussion involve how Rhonda will fair against male athletes in her chosen sport, which to me rings false, as women's boxing/fighting is not the same as men's boxing/fighting (this is similar to the distinction I make between bantamweight vs heavyweight boxing).

Quite frankly, I tend to be suspicious of such discussions too and I'm not really sure what the OP is after here, but Rick did have a valid point as to RR's place:

...unfortunately, there just aren't any other females out there yet to compete at that level.

RR is a world-class athlete in a sport that has very thin competition and as such, it is difficult to judge her beyond the limited sample of what we've seen. At their best, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan were head and shoulders above their competition in well-developed, highly competitive sports. But for RR, the lack of competition makes it difficult to judge just how good she is. Yeah, she's head and shoulders above everyone else, but how much of that is her being great and how much is nobody else being any good? I don't know. A similar phenomena exists for women's hockey, where it is the US and Canada and then everybody (nobody) else. But hey, men also have thin sports. Apropos: boxing.