Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

TMB wrote:
How exactly do you define "entertaining"? What is it that female gymnasts have or do that male gymnasts have or do not that makes them more entertaining?

What is entertaining is defined by how many people watch the sport. Smaller people make for better gymnasts, women as a group have a larger selection of athletes that fit the needed size parameters, therefore the accomplishment is greater as the competition is greater.

I disagree. Only floor and vault disciplines are common to men and women in gymnastics there are 6 others that are only offered to one gender. No male is going to risk his balls on the beam or uneven bars, and women do not have the strength for rings or pommel. So do you mean that of these 2 events only size means women will produce better performance than men because women are smaller than men? Given jockeys have an advantage being smaller surely all things being equal, we would find that women dominate this sport? It appears not, men dominate elite jockey jobs, they seem to find enough small men to dominate the more common small women.

How have you decided that women do in fact produce better performances than men in floor and vault, because there are more to choose from, and therefore with the greater competition produce better results. Your view appears correct for the ski jump where the combination of ability and strength favors women slightly and they produce measurably better re sults than men, and given they lag by bEtween 10-30% in most events, this is significant.

Simply by what people are willing to watch. That is the money in sports, what people want to entertain themselves by watching.

Women are better overall resenting gymnastics in an entertaining way.

Should this bother anyone?

Never-mind the sports stuff.

Is what we find entertaining a reflection of life, or is life reflecting entertainment?



I will tell you, for the most part, women's basketball teams play a better all-around game. If you want to see basketball played as it was designed, watch high quality coaching of girls basketball. It is a pure game.

I'd say men represent the majority of viewers in most professional sports. The advertising reflects that demographic, so does the reward structure.

NuclMan wrote:I'd say men represent the majority of viewers in most professional sports. The advertising reflects that demographic, so does the reward structure.

According to Neilsen, women are around 33% of tv audience in the US, with some up to 45% women. The reason so little advertising is done to the female viewers has been put down to there being better ways to sell to women, but it's a good medium to advertise to men. No idea why you think reward structures are an effect of audience breakdown, do you?

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Women are better overall resenting gymnastics in an entertaining way.

How does this work?

*Looks at thread title*

TMB wrote:You are splitting hairs, there is nothing ambiguous stating that paying less reward for less merit is equitable. Granted it is a problem working the specifics, and it is also unambiguous seeing that paying women the same reward for les merit is not equitable.

It's not a little problem 'working the specifics', if you are actually being honest in what you say you believe.

If you think it is 'unfair' for a woman in a women's tournament to be paid the same as a man who she would lose to in a direct competition, and if, as you say, the top women players would be coming 100th or worse in a single combined competition, then if you were sticking to your 'principle' rather than simply appealing to it when convenient, you'd logically have to argue that the women don't really deserve any higher prizes than the men they were competitive with. That is, possibly no prizes at all.

To argue for anything else would seem to be to abandon your principle.

tolman wrote:

TMB wrote:You are splitting hairs, there is nothing ambiguous stating that paying less reward for less merit is equitable. Granted it is a problem working the specifics, and it is also unambiguous seeing that paying women the same reward for les merit is not equitable.

It's not a little problem 'working the specifics', if you are actually being honest in what you say you believe.

If you think it is 'unfair' for a woman in a women's tournament to be paid the same as a man who she would lose to in a direct competition, and if, as you say, the top women players would be coming 100th or worse in a single combined competition, then if you were sticking to your 'principle' rather than simply appealing to it when convenient, you'd logically have to argue that the women don't really deserve any higher prizes than the men they were competitive with. That is, possibly no prizes at all.

To argue for anything else would seem to be to abandon your principle.

That would depend upon what you understand my principle to be. Since there is so much misattribution from other posters on what people do or do not think, articulate your understanding of my principle. I will agree or disagree with your opinion and we can see if you have a valid point. How hard can that be?

Why don't you articulate your principle to clear up any misunderstandings that have happened?

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Why don't you articulate your principle to clear up any misunderstandings that have happened?

Because I do not think that Tolman will be able to articulate what my position is, given the last post made and idea that i am somehow contradicting my position. Given the confused way Tolmans post was done, I will like to see if its possible to state this from the ground up. I have stated my position a number of times in this thread, lets see if Tolman is able to do this. I cannot see how the post, as stated, can even be applied to my position.

If you think I have not stated my position, here is what I said a couple pages back. This has no contradiction, but the way Tolman has worded this makes me think there is an an unstated assumption, and I cannot imagine what could validate the claim that I have contradicted my position.

I do not have an issue with segregation in sport on the basis of gender, I have a issue with the fact that equal prize money has been awarded for what must be inferior merit (otherwise there would be no basis on which to segregate) and then arguing that it is sexist NOT to pay them the same.

Well, in that case, you really should have an issue with the top woman being awarded the same (or higher) prize money than any man who is of 'superior merit'.

Which by your measure of seemingly equating merit with direct competitiveness would appear to prevent women being given meaningful prizes at all.

There's no logical basis to say it's definitively unfair and therefore Wrong for the top man and top woman to be paid the same because he'd be almost certain to beat her in a fair fight and not to conclude the same regarding her and other men who get less prize money than she does who would also be almost certain to beat her.

What metric do you use for 'superior merit'? How about jiggling boobs? That would be my metric for something like beach volleyball.

I'll never understand why lingerie football hasn't taken off better than it has.

TMB wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Why don't you articulate your principle to clear up any misunderstandings that have happened?

Because I do not think that Tolman will be able to articulate what my position is, given the last post made and idea that i am somehow contradicting my position. Given the confused way Tolmans post was done, I will like to see if its possible to state this from the ground up. I have stated my position a number of times in this thread, lets see if Tolman is able to do this. I cannot see how the post, as stated, can even be applied to my position.

If you think I have not stated my position, here is what I said a couple pages back. This has no contradiction, but the way Tolman has worded this makes me think there is an an unstated assumption, and I cannot imagine what could validate the claim that I have contradicted my position.

I do not have an issue with segregation in sport on the basis of gender, I have a issue with the fact that equal prize money has been awarded for what must be inferior merit (otherwise there would be no basis on which to segregate) and then arguing that it is sexist NOT to pay them the same.

But the merit isn't inferior, the merit is being the best in the highest level group. And while there might be physical reasons in some sports to separate the sexes that doesn't mean the people playing are playing any less well.

You assume that one sex must be better than the other, that the reason they are separated is because if joined one group would be able to always out preform the other. That isn't the only reason to separate groups based on average physical limitations, another reason is that due to those limitations the play styles are different and that in a joined group the two styles would not work well with each other. That doesn't mean one play style will always beat the other, just that they would be not as fun to watch or play. Your assumptions are part of the problem here, they assume that one sex is better than the other.

It's not really an assumption that men are better than women at every measurable athletic event (running, jumping, hurdling, swimming etc.) and most athletic sports (football, rugby, basketball, tennis etc.) though is it? It's an easily demonstrable fact in many cases and widely admitted by top sports people in others.

The question of whether this mean women are of less "merit" is an entirely different one.

I buy that in most cases at the high level of certain sports men can be proven to run faster, or jump further. But in stuff like football, basketball and the like I have never seen anyone really make a case for why women can't be as good as men. I have seen women who can out preform men in those sports at lower levels and I think there are some that could out preform on the highest level as well.

Tennis for one has mixed doubles, the women are preforming at the same level as the men in the team. Netball is a highly demanding physical sport and while on average women are shorter making them less appealing for people who focus solely on the tall basketball players they clearly have the skills to play in other parts of the team, they use those same skills in netball.

laklak wrote:What metric do you use for 'superior merit'?

Well, that's the thing.
If it's 'direct competitiveness in one single combined competition', then in most sports, women would seem unlikely to get much (or even anything at all) at the highest level.

If it's 'inequitable' for Kvitova to get the same as Djokovic, it must also 'inequitable' (arguably rather more so) for Kvitova to get more than Federer.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I buy that in most cases at the high level of certain sports men can be proven to run faster, or jump further. But in stuff like football, basketball and the like I have never seen anyone really make a case for why women can't be as good as men. I have seen women who can out preform men in those sports at lower levels and I think there are some that could out preform on the highest level as well.

Tennis for one has mixed doubles, the women are preforming at the same level as the men in the team. Netball is a highly demanding physical sport and while on average women are shorter making them less appealing for people who focus solely on the tall basketball players they clearly have the skills to play in other parts of the team, they use those same skills in netball.

Women regularly play tennis against men at lower levels, they get smashed if they play a man who is in the same percentile of all men as they are of women. Women have attempted to play golf with the men and get smashed (it ruined Michelle Wi's game for years for example) and so on.

It's just fact in most cases, which is why I was delighted to read upthread when DoubtDispelled (I think it was anyway) pointed out that ski jumping is an example of an athletic sport where women might well be genuinely better. I've a vague feeling there are some competitive women biathletes or something as well.

Bottom line is that I don't think there's any point arguing against the idea that in strict sporting terms men are (in most cases) better than women if you match based on rankings or look at the very top competitors.

The important thing to remember is that this is not the same as merit and does not determine remuneration, this thread has already slipped its goalposts so many times I've lost count and I don't really see much point in arguing against TMB on the one place he actually has a solid case. But, to be fair, that's just my opinion!

ETA: To indicate just how mismatched tennis actually is:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... 8tennis%29

Navratilova v Connors

A third "Battle of the Sexes" match, entitled Battle of Champions, was played at Caesars Palace in Paradise, Nevada, in September 25, 1992, between Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova, aged 40 and 35 respectively. Navratilova had previously turned down invitations to take on John McEnroe and Ilie Năstase, as she considered them undignified.[13] The promoters initially tried to match Connors with the then top ranked female player, Monica Seles. Connors called the match 'war'. Navratilova, on the other hand, called it a battle of egos.[16]

The match was played under hybrid rules to make it more competitive; Connors was allowed only one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court. Each player received a $650,000 guarantee, with a further $500,000 for the winner.[17] Connors won 7–5, 6–2.[18] Navratilova made 8 double faults and 36 unforced errors. Connors, too, was nervous and there was a rumor that he had placed a bet on himself to win at 4:1.[19]
Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters

A fourth event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[20] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams, aged 17 and 16 respectively, had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked below 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park.[21] Braasch first took on Venus and beat her 6–2. He then played Serena and won 6–1.[22] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun."[23]
Other matches

In December 2003, Yannick Noah and Justine Henin played a friendly at the Forest National in Brussels. Noah donned a dress for much of the match. He played predominantly trick shots and slices, but still ended up winning 4–6, 6–4, 7–6.[24]

In October 2013 Novak Djokovic and Li Na played a light-hearted exhibition mini set in Beijing, China to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the China Open. Djokovic clowned to the amusement of the crowd, and at one point swapped places with a ballboy. Li was given a 30–0 advantage at the start of each service game, and she went on to win 3–2.[25]

In 2013, Andy Murray responded to a Twitter user who asked whether he would consider challenging Serena Williams, saying "I’d be up for it. Why not?" Williams also reacted positively to the suggestion, remarking "That would be fun. I doubt I’d win a point, but that would be fun."[26]

laklak wrote:What metric do you use for 'superior merit'? How about jiggling boobs? That would be my metric for something like beach volleyball.

I'll never understand why lingerie football hasn't taken off better than it has.

Have you ever tried to run around in heels and lingerie? It's not quite as fun as it looks.

TMB wrote:

NuclMan wrote:I'd say men represent the majority of viewers in most professional sports. The advertising reflects that demographic, so does the reward structure.

According to Neilsen, women are around 33% of tv audience in the US, with some up to 45% women. The reason so little advertising is done to the female viewers has been put down to there being better ways to sell to women, but it's a good medium to advertise to men. No idea why you think reward structures are an effect of audience breakdown, do you?

Well if sports viewership is mostly male, ESPN reports 3:1, then obviously advertisers of male oriented products will exploit that, increasing the revenue pool available to pro sports organizations.