TMB wrote:You are correct there would be little interest in matching men with women because of the different abilities, but this does not justify (and this is the point of the discussion) giving them the same reward when performance is different.

And how are you quantifying different performance? How hard they hit the ball? How much they run around the court? The number of calories they burn up?

TMB wrote:The difference between the 100m and the 10000m is one of type, just as the javelin and 100m are . The difference between men and women in the way these things are measured is one of degree and not type. Comparing the 100m to the 10000m or the javelin is not a valid comparison to the difference in women/men. Gold medal holders in the 100m sprint get more status than the gold medals holders for the hockey. This is because even though these are different disciplines with no objective way of directly comparing their proponents as being better or worse than the other.

And again you're just evading the issue.
Basically you think it is ok for people of the same sex to be segregated for the sake of their physiological differences, but not ok for people of different sexes.

TMB wrote: Once again this is not the case between the genders, they are being measured using specific metrics, so that we can agree that the mens winning time for the 100m is better than the womens winning time, because we have decided that faster is better.

The time is irrelevant, it is merely who crosses the line first who determines the winner of the competition. If you just wanted to run a time trial, you wouldn't need to get 10 or more competitors on the track. You could time them running 100m wherever they were in the world.

The issue of time only comes into it when determining who, historically, has crossed that line quickest out of all the competitors in history. Now when someone looks likely to break that record, that does tend to draw a crowd.

The entertainment value comes from seeing who, out of those 10 competitors, will cross the line fastest. Now as to which is more entertaining, men or women, well a rough measure I suppose would be to see how many people (globally) tuned in to watch each event. It would be very rough measure though, given you'd have to take into account the gender biases of the viewing public on a nation by nation basis.

TMB wrote:You are wrong.

Nope.

TMB wrote:There are plenty of women who play with the same or more power than plenty of men.

You are comparing the most powerful serving women with the weakest serving men.

Whereas as a rule, women do not play the power serve game as men do. Indeed any competitive male tennis player will not want to have a weak serve in comparison to their peers otherwise, logically, they will not be very competitive.

Also in terms of speed, considering the 100m race, consider the that the male world record is 9.58secs and the female is 10.49secs.

That is less than a second's difference.
In terms of a viewing experience, it doesn't really stack up that either race should be more "entertaining" than the other.

There's no rationale for awarding prizes of any sort. Prizes and prizes amounts are market driven. WNBA, the women's professional basketball league, has crappy prizes because they have a crappy return on investment because nobody watches it. The NFL has people signing 98 million dollar contracts because a fuckton of people apparently care about football. Go figure. I can't sit through 10 minutes of any team sport without yawning, but that's just me.

laklak wrote:There's no rationale for awarding prizes of any sort. Prizes and prizes amounts are market driven. WNBA, the women's professional basketball league, has crappy prizes because they have a crappy return on investment because nobody watches it. The NFL has people signing 98 million dollar contracts because a fuckton of people apparently care about football. Go figure. I can't sit through 10 minutes of any team sport without yawning, but that's just me.

Actually, advertisers care about access to that fuckton of interested people - as you said, market driven.

Oh, and watch the Brazilian women's volleyball team - you might be doing something else at the 10 min mark

Sendraks wrote:

TMB wrote:
Whatever wording gets used if people place value on relative abilities in sport, in this case between the genders, you can sugar coat it all you want, the fact still remains that men outcompete women in almost every sporting discipline, and people place a great value on better performance in every discipline.

By "people" you mean "yourself."
Which isn't a compelling argument.

What people who watch sports value, as I'll go on to illustrate, is the competition between the top performers. If there is no competition, there is no interest.

TMB wrote:That is incorrect, sport is a mechanism through which people can be assessed relative to each other. When young kids compete and are given prizes for participation, they have no value to the kids, they want to get awards because they win things and have done it by beating others. Comparative ability of the players IS the entertainment. Even in events that are less quantifiable, like dancing, they still have competitions and measure who is best, second best etc.

And this is incorrect, in so far that you fail to recognise that sport or competitions of any sort, are only entertaining when the competition is meaningful. Men vs Women atheltics would be of limited entertainment value to all but the most misogynist of spectators. This is why tournaments, such as wimbledon, are based on a seeding system of performance over many games that all but the most ardent fans of tennis will never see. There isn't much interest in watching the world number 1 demolish a player seeded 200th or something.

TMB wrote:This is not a valid comparison,

It is. Your saying otherwise does not change that. But you appear to be leading yourself to the point.

TMB wrote:If you think it is logical to query 10000m versus 100m, perhaps you would like to show us that logic and explain how it works.

Quite simply. 10000m vs 100m wouldn't be much of a competition would it? Who would watch it?
And therefore the same logic applies as to why you have separate tournaments for men and women.

But this is precisely what TMB is arguing. Absent a separate competition for women, female competitors would be eliminated in earlier contests, leaving only male competitors in the highest-level championships. You've conceded his central point.

Your 100m vs 1000m analogy is just weird. Competitors built and trained for endurance would outperform competitors built and trained for short-range speed in the 1000m in the earlier contests. Competitors built and trained for short-range speed would outperform competitors built and trained for endurance in the 100m in the earlier contests. You wouldn't get a 100m champion competing in the top 1000m event because people are "segregated" by physical ability over the course of a series of contests of physical ability. In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

Nicko wrote:But this is precisely what TMB is arguing. Absent a separate competition for women, female competitors would be eliminated in earlier contests, leaving only male competitors in the highest-level championships. You've conceded his central point.

No, his point is that the sole purpose of sport/athletics is based around some spurious notion of "better" or "lesser" athletes. No one is denying that we have separate men and women's competitions for a reason, one of the principles being to avoid the sexist notion that women should not be allowed to compete and the a secondary principle being that the competition should be "fair."

Nicko wrote:Your 100m vs 1000m analogy is just weird. Competitors built and trained for endurance would outperform competitors built and trained for short-range speed in the 1000m in the earlier contests. Competitors built and trained for short-range speed would outperform competitors built and trained for endurance in the 100m in the earlier contests. You wouldn't get a 100m champion competing in the top 1000m event because people are "segregated" by physical ability over the course of a series of contests of physical ability. In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

No, you're missing the point. The point being that in TMB's world people of different physiologies are allowed to be segregated into different sports, providing they are of the same sex. This is clearly a nonsense in the face of him thinking that it is somehow incorrect for men and women (who have differing phsyiologies) to be segregated.

Why think one thing is acceptable and not the other?

Sendraks wrote:

Nicko wrote:But this is precisely what TMB is arguing. Absent a separate competition for women, female competitors would be eliminated in earlier contests, leaving only male competitors in the highest-level championships. You've conceded his central point.

No, his point is that the sole purpose of sport/athletics is based around some spurious notion of "better" or "lesser" athletes. No one is denying that we have separate men and women's competitions for a reason, one of the principles being to avoid the sexist notion that women should not be allowed to compete and the a secondary principle being that the competition should be "fair."

As far as I can see, he's not saying that that is the entire point of sport.

He does appear to be saying that, at least where there is meaningful commercial income with some difference in income, differences between segregated competitions where people play the same game (in the sense of 'who would win if there was no segregation) should necessarily result in a difference in prize money, rather than being either a factor which could be considered in decision-making, or a fact which is simply ignored.

Sendraks wrote:No, you're missing the point. The point being that in TMB's world people of different physiologies are allowed to be segregated into different sports, providing they are of the same sex. This is clearly a nonsense in the face of him thinking that it is somehow incorrect for men and women (who have differing phsyiologies) to be segregated.

It pains me to say it, given how terrible I've found most of TMB's arguments in this thread, but I think you're misrepresenting him here.

I can't see anywhere TMB has suggested or endorsed banning some men from entering either a 100m or 10,000m race. The fact that world class athletes at one distance might lose over a different one is an entirely different proposition than endorsing segregation. I don't think anyone has ever suggested Michael Johnson couldn't be a good 200m runner because of his prowess at the 400.

If he is actually suggesting that certain people (maybe at high school age) should in some Orwellian fashion be assigned a sport for life and banned from all other races, distances or events, then yes, he's making an incredibly stupid suggestion and misrepresenting reality quite badly. I'm reasonable sure he's not though.

Thommo wrote:

Sendraks wrote:No, you're missing the point. The point being that in TMB's world people of different physiologies are allowed to be segregated into different sports, providing they are of the same sex. This is clearly a nonsense in the face of him thinking that it is somehow incorrect for men and women (who have differing phsyiologies) to be segregated.

It pains me to say it, given how terrible I've found most of TMB's arguments in this thread, but I think you're misrepresenting him here.

I can't see anywhere TMB has suggested or endorsed banning some men from entering either a 100m or 10,000m race. The fact that world class athletes at one distance might lose over a different one is an entirely different proposition than endorsing segregation. I don't think anyone has ever suggested Michael Johnson couldn't be a good 200m runner because of his prowess at the 400.

If he is actually suggesting that certain people (maybe at high school age) should in some Orwellian fashion be assigned a sport for life and banned from all other races, distances or events, then yes, he's making an incredibly stupid suggestion and misrepresenting reality quite badly. I'm reasonable sure he's not though.

Thommo you are quite correct, however Sendrake arguments are not sound at the outset, so its not surprise if my views are made to look equally distorted.

As I read it, the point of the 10,000m / 100m comparison is that if you want to find out who is the fastest at running, the answer is Usain Bolt, or on some days, other sprinters. The very best 10,000m runners will never hit Usain's speed (or that of any top sprinter) in metres per second, either on average, or on any part of their run. So why have an event for these obviously slower athletes? Why not just say "You're slower than Usain, so go home now."?

Same with flyweight boxers. Same with lightweight rowers. Same with 69kg weightlifters. Same with 1500m swimmers. Same with Paralympians. Same with every shotputter who can't outthrow a javelin thrower. Why do we have events for all those losers? And why doesn't TMB have the same problem with them as he has with women's events?

OlivierK wrote:As I read it, the point of the 10,000m / 100m comparison is that if you want to find out who is the fastest at running, the answer is Usain Bolt, or on some days, other sprinters. The very best 10,000m runners will never hit Usain's speed (or that of any top sprinter) in metres per second, either on average, or on any part of their run. So why have an event for these obviously slower athletes? Why not just say "You're slower than Usain, so go home now."?

It depends what you define 'running' as, and whether you define it as one single thing. or many things.

And it seems a bizarre choice of analogy to persist with given that there are sports where people are explicitly segregated in terms of weight.

Didn't Olivier mention some in the very next paragraph?

Presumably you have the same objection to the very existence of paralympians and flyweight boxers?

Nicko wrote: In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

What a great comment.

OlivierK wrote:As I read it, the point of the 10,000m / 100m comparison is that if you want to find out who is the fastest at running, the answer is Usain Bolt, or on some days, other sprinters. The very best 10,000m runners will never hit Usain's speed (or that of any top sprinter) in metres per second, either on average, or on any part of their run. So why have an event for these obviously slower athletes? Why not just say "You're slower than Usain, so go home now."?

Same with flyweight boxers. Same with lightweight rowers. Same with 69kg weightlifters. Same with 1500m swimmers. Same with Paralympians. Same with every shotputter who can't outthrow a javelin thrower. Why do we have events for all those losers? And why doesn't TMB have the same problem with them as he has with women's events?

Perhaps because there's no one advocating - to expand on one of your examples - that the WBA should be compelled to offer the same purse to the winner of the world flyweight title as it does the winner of the heavyweight title?

OlivierK wrote:As I read it, the point of the 10,000m / 100m comparison is that if you want to find out who is the fastest at running, the answer is Usain Bolt, or on some days, other sprinters. The very best 10,000m runners will never hit Usain's speed (or that of any top sprinter) in metres per second, either on average, or on any part of their run. So why have an event for these obviously slower athletes? Why not just say "You're slower than Usain, so go home now."?

Same with flyweight boxers. Same with lightweight rowers. Same with 69kg weightlifters. Same with 1500m swimmers. Same with Paralympians. Same with every shotputter who can't outthrow a javelin thrower. Why do we have events for all those losers? And why doesn't TMB have the same problem with them as he has with women's events?

Oliver understands the point I am making. I am puzzled as to why it seems to be beyond the grasp of some of you.
I don't expect TMB to understand it, as anything outside of his echo chamber is beyond his comprehension.

TMB wrote:however Sendrake arguments are not sound at the outset,

My argument is sound as evidence by the fact that others comprehend it, you just don't understand it or (more likely) are choosing not to understand it because it successfully challenges your position.

Thommo wrote:Didn't Olivier mention some in the very next paragraph?

I should have been more explicit and pointed out that it was Sendraks who was persisting with the analogy.

Thommo wrote:Presumably you have the same objection to the very existence of paralympians and flyweight boxers?

I don't have any objections at all - such things seem to make perfect sense to me.

All I would say is that once one moves away from competitions which are actually (or at least supposedly) purely for the sake of competition to something more commercial, I see no overwhelming principle demanding that either
a) people in segregated competitions are given prizes in direct proportion to the money their part of the competition attracts
or, at least
b) people in segregated competitions cannot be paid the same unless their parts of the competition attract exactly the same income
Nor do I see any overwhelming 'principle' demanding that they must be paid the same even if the two or more parts of the competition attract different incomes.

And to be honest, I think that that (not having rigid rules pushing in either direction) is the position of most people in reality, even if precisely where they stand may vary from person to person.
People seem likely to largely agree about various extreme examples whatever principles they may lean towards as rules of thumb.

tolman wrote:
I should have been more explicit and pointed out that it was Sendraks who was persisting with the analogy.

I'm sorry, do you still not understand it?
I'm serious here. The whole point I am making, which Oliver has grasped, is the very notion by which TMB considers women to be lesser athletes is equally applicable to male athletes competing in different specialities.

To put it simply.

There is no logical grounds for accepting the segregation of male athletes of different specialities whilst claiming that the segregation of female athletes somehow reflects on them being "lesser" in some way.

Sendraks wrote:

tolman wrote:
I should have been more explicit and pointed out that it was Sendraks who was persisting with the analogy.

I'm sorry, do you still not understand it?
I'm serious here. The whole point I am making, which Oliver has grasped, is the very notion by which TMB considers women to be lesser athletes is equally applicable to male athletes competing in different specialities.

For which a running-distance based analogy is, quite frankly, daft.

Sendraks wrote:To put it simply.

There is no logical grounds for accepting the segregation of male athletes of different specialities whilst claiming that the segregation of female athletes somehow reflects on them being "lesser" in some way.

Well, if the explicit segregation of different people based on their personal characteristics for the precise same sporting challenge is done because without such segregation some people wouldn't really stand a chance or winning, clearly in one narrow sense some people are better (as in 'they would win in an open competition').

I don't personally see the word 'lesser' as a particularly useful one since it carries all manner of baggage.
Nor do I see differences in 'absolute performance' as generally relevant to prize funding even in commercially-funded competitions, even if differential income may be relevant.

About the only real relevance I can see is that 'absolute performance' might be one reason some people would honestly prefer watching (and hence funding) male sport rather than female sport even in the complete absence of any 'sexist' motives, and hence it would be a mistake to automatically infer sexism in the presence of things like income differentials when there is at least one non-sexist reason possible.