Male vs Female Boxing: Comparing Strengths

[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.

 

[StatGuy2000]

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

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:

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.

russ, my response to Rick's comments is related to the following (with bolded emphasis from me):

"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."

So it reads and sounds to me that Rick is saying that she's not a world-class athlete, in spite of his praise of her judo skills. So my reading is not unjustified, at least IMHO.

I am in agreement with you otherwise that RR is a world-class athlete in a sport with a limited # of participants, so it is difficult to judge her capabilities beyond the limited sample available.