Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Not news: UConn women's basketball wins another tourney game. News: The final score was 72-26. Fark: The team they beat was an 8 seed that already won their first round game   (sports.sportsillustrated.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Geno Auriemma, basketball, Maya Moore, College of Charleston, perfect game, field goal percentage, uconn, rout  
•       •       •

1689 clicks; posted to Sports » on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:43 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-03-20 03:12:10 PM  
Interestingly, if Tergat's record were invalid, as it apparently should be under the rules you guys are proposing, then Gebrselassie would have gotten the record in 2006 (new window), not 2007, when he beat Costa's time by 9 seconds.
 
2012-03-20 03:17:00 PM  
Oh, and also, from that Running Times article linked above:
Today, for the sake of the media, male pacesetters (or "escorts," as they're often called) run to the side of the women, rather than in front as pacers do in men's races. Weldon Johnson, who escorted Radcliffe through 25 miles of her first world record (2:17:18) at the Chicago Marathon in 2002, recalls that his contract was clear: The escorts should be to the side of the racers, off camera... being off to the side doesn't provide the same wind-blocking or shut-your-brain-off-and-follow advantages enjoyed by men being shamelessly paced by other men... Reflecting on her existing record, Radcliffe denies that she was paced by the male runners at her side. "I very consciously ran alongside them rather than ever behind," she told RunnersWorld.com in an interview following the IAAF ruling.

So, that whole "drafting" argument actually works against you. Male racers get the benefit of drafting. Female racers do not. Maybe all of those male records should be invalid.
 
2012-03-20 03:17:50 PM  

Theaetetus: Yanks_RSJ: AliceBToklasLives: Good thing men's basketball never went through a period when one school just dominated everyone, winning like, I dunno, 10 national titles or something.

In other words, women's basketball is half a century behind the men's game and has no business staging a 64-team tournament?

Agreed.

If it's only 50 years behind the men's game, then any differences can't be attributable to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, no?
It's like the marathon records I mentioned above. If women are routinely beating men's world records from 80 years ago, then any claim that women can't compete on an equal level due to innate differences in physiology that evolved over thousands of years must be false.


Does anyone actually claim that women can compete with men on an equal level (in athletics)? That's not a matter of opinion, or women's lib, or anything else: it is an empirical question and obviously false.

/I thought the question concerned women competing against each other with some kind of parity.
 
2012-03-20 03:18:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Thus, contrary to your assertion, pacers can and do pace winners to the world record.


At some point in the attempt the pacing stopped and the racing started. Unless you think that Korir wanted to lose.

Again, I disagree with the rule, but there's a fundamental difference between being paced by a competitor and being paced by someone who's just there as a pacer.

Your hypothetical is silly. No woman will ever beat a male world record holder at a contest of strength, speed, or endurance.
 
2012-03-20 03:22:30 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Theaetetus: Yanks_RSJ: AliceBToklasLives: Good thing men's basketball never went through a period when one school just dominated everyone, winning like, I dunno, 10 national titles or something.

In other words, women's basketball is half a century behind the men's game and has no business staging a 64-team tournament?

Agreed.

If it's only 50 years behind the men's game, then any differences can't be attributable to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, no?
It's like the marathon records I mentioned above. If women are routinely beating men's world records from 80 years ago, then any claim that women can't compete on an equal level due to innate differences in physiology that evolved over thousands of years must be false.

Does anyone actually claim that women can compete with men on an equal level (in athletics)? That's not a matter of opinion, or women's lib, or anything else: it is an empirical question and obviously false.


No - take a look over the thread. We're all agreed that women can't compete with men on an equal level. The question, rather, is why women can't compete with men on an equal level: physiological differences, training, a combination, etc.

If it's not anything innate - and unless major leaps in evolution are occurring over the span of a few decades, then the empirical data is clear that it's not - then it comes down to a question of money and training, and if that disparity were removed, then it is quite possible that women could compete with men on an equal level in athletics.
 
2012-03-20 03:22:56 PM  

dletter: I think you are drunk.... Womens College Basketball has a 30 second shot clock... which is actually shorter than the mens (35 seconds).


Oh, right, the women had the shot clock first because otherwise they never bothered to shoot. Then the men had some douchebags who finally started thinking "all that matters is winning, f*ck playing the sport" and had to implement it later.

Got my sh*t backwards on that one. Still not impressed by beating a mediocre team.

And mostly I want everyone to have the opportunity to laugh at the Magic - the team I damn near think teams were losing to right before the trade deadline so they'd think they had a chance. They're now 0-2 since (against the best teams in the East, but still).

Theaetetus: Under the IAAF rules, his new record would stand and hers would be thrown out.


If it actually happened, I'm sure there would be enough of a fuss raised that it wouldn't actually be recorded that way.
 
2012-03-20 03:24:38 PM  
Also, running is not a sport. It's exercise.
 
2012-03-20 03:27:37 PM  

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: Thus, contrary to your assertion, pacers can and do pace winners to the world record.

At some point in the attempt the pacing stopped and the racing started. Unless you think that Korir wanted to lose.


Again, from that article, pacers are paid a lot of money to pace. They're also bound by contracts. I think Korir likes getting paid and not sued, don't you?

Again, I disagree with the rule, but there's a fundamental difference between being paced by a competitor and being paced by someone who's just there as a pacer.

So, your argument is that those men didn't really have pacers when they won those races? Like a "No True Pacer" argument?

Your hypothetical is silly. No woman will ever beat a male world record holder at a contest of strength, speed, or endurance.

My hypothetical is entirely accurate, though, isn't it? Under the IAAF rules, the woman's record would be invalid while the men's record would be valid. Isn't that exactly the current legal situation?

And, since women routinely beat the world records of men from a few decades ago, and world records, by definition, are historical records, then the statement that "no woman will ever beat a male world record holder" is patently false: many women can run faster than some men who have held world records.
 
2012-03-20 03:30:08 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Under the IAAF rules, his new record would stand and hers would be thrown out.

If it actually happened, I'm sure there would be enough of a fuss raised that it wouldn't actually be recorded that way.


Most likely, but that's not a reason to let the rule stand until then, particularly since most marathons are coed, and so the existence of the rule means no woman can get a valid world record at most of the major races, regardless of how fast she burns up the course.
 
2012-03-20 03:33:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Again, from that article, pacers are paid a lot of money to pace. They're also bound by contracts. I think Korir likes getting paid and not sued, don't you?


Korir attempted to catch Tergat and failed. He did not finish in second place due to contractual obligations. You're arguing from a position of total ignorance, and it's embarrassing.

Theaetetus: So, your argument is that those men didn't really have pacers when they won those races? Like a "No True Pacer" argument?


See above.

Theaetetus: My hypothetical is entirely accurate, though, isn't it? Under the IAAF rules, the woman's record would be invalid while the men's record would be valid. Isn't that exactly the current legal situation?

And, since women routinely beat the world records of men from a few decades ago, and world records, by definition, are historical records, then the statement that "no woman will ever beat a male world record holder" is patently false: many women can run faster than some men who have held world records.


Your hypothetical is a strawman. You are truly an insufferable pedant. No woman will beat a current men's record holder.
 
2012-03-20 03:40:28 PM  

Theaetetus: AliceBToklasLives: Theaetetus: Yanks_RSJ: AliceBToklasLives: Good thing men's basketball never went through a period when one school just dominated everyone, winning like, I dunno, 10 national titles or something.

In other words, women's basketball is half a century behind the men's game and has no business staging a 64-team tournament?

Agreed.

If it's only 50 years behind the men's game, then any differences can't be attributable to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, no?
It's like the marathon records I mentioned above. If women are routinely beating men's world records from 80 years ago, then any claim that women can't compete on an equal level due to innate differences in physiology that evolved over thousands of years must be false.

Does anyone actually claim that women can compete with men on an equal level (in athletics)? That's not a matter of opinion, or women's lib, or anything else: it is an empirical question and obviously false.

No - take a look over the thread. We're all agreed that women can't compete with men on an equal level. The question, rather, is why women can't compete with men on an equal level: physiological differences, training, a combination, etc.

If it's not anything innate - and unless major leaps in evolution are occurring over the span of a few decades, then the empirical data is clear that it's not - then it comes down to a question of money and training, and if that disparity were removed, then it is quite possible that women could compete with men on an equal level in athletics.


Of course the primary difference is physiological - no doubt training amplifies the inherent physiological differences between men and women, but women are simply by and large smaller and weaker than men. QED.

/don't let exceptions make the rule - Lisa Leslie in her prime could beat most men 1-on-1, but not a really good high school player. And anyways she is an exception - just like Michael Jordan is an exception.
 
2012-03-20 03:46:50 PM  

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: Again, from that article, pacers are paid a lot of money to pace. They're also bound by contracts. I think Korir likes getting paid and not sued, don't you?

Korir attempted to catch Tergat and failed. He did not finish in second place due to contractual obligations. You're arguing from a position of total ignorance, and it's embarrassing.


You sound very upset about this. I quoted an article that explained the contracts involved, while you've just blustered angrily. Do you have a citation that Korir was not acting as a contractual pacemaker, or are you "arguing from a position of total ignorance, and it's embarrassing" as well as hypocritical?

Theaetetus: My hypothetical is entirely accurate, though, isn't it? Under the IAAF rules, the woman's record would be invalid while the men's record would be valid. Isn't that exactly the current legal situation?

And, since women routinely beat the world records of men from a few decades ago, and world records, by definition, are historical records, then the statement that "no woman will ever beat a male world record holder" is patently false: many women can run faster than some men who have held world records.

Your hypothetical is a strawman.


Is that why you can't answer the question? Here, allow me to answer it for you, since you're apparently afraid to:
"Yes, Theaetetus, under the IAAF rules, the woman's record would be invalid while the men's record would be valid."

Now, having established what's objectively true, we can argue over whether that's sexist and unfair.

You are truly an insufferable pedant.

... or maybe we won't have that discussion, since you've apparently devolved into name-calling. I asked you a reasonable question, provided citations from articles, quoted world record statistics, and you... got upset and started pounding the table.

But yes, clearly, I'm the one acting embarrassingly.

No woman will beat a current men's record holder.

By definition, no man will be beat a current men's record holder, either. Next year or the year after, however, some man will beat the historical record of the current men's record holder. And some more years after that, some woman will beat the historical record of the current men's record holder. But she doesn't count, because of [bluster, anger, name calling, pedantry, wharrrgarbl].

You're wrong. Everything I've cited proves you wrong, and you've provided not a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Maybe this gets you so upset because you know you're wrong, and you've got nothing to refute that.

In which case, I truly feel sorry for you and your soul-shattering insecurity, and since I don't want to indirectly cause you further pain by pointing out more ways you're wrong, I'll stop talking to you. Hopefully, without your constant anguish and misery resulting from my posts, you'll recover enough to get some help.
Cheers, and good luck.
 
2012-03-20 04:04:56 PM  

Theaetetus: bacongood: It invalidates the record because they set the pace for the entire race. That is a lot more than "giving encouragement".

Eight years ago, when Paul Tergat became the first man to run sub-2:05 in the marathon (2:04:55), he edged out pacemaker Sammy Korir by less than a second to clinch the record.

So, your position is that Tergat's record is invalid?


Nope.

Theaetetus: you have pee hands: Theaetetus: Again, from that article, pacers are paid a lot of money to pace. They're also bound by contracts. I think Korir likes getting paid and not sued, don't you?

Korir attempted to catch Tergat and failed. He did not finish in second place due to contractual obligations. You're arguing from a position of total ignorance, and it's embarrassing.

You sound very upset about this. I quoted an article that explained the contracts involved, while you've just blustered angrily. Do you have a citation that Korir was not acting as a contractual pacemaker, or are you "arguing from a position of total ignorance, and it's embarrassing" as well as hypocritical?


You seem ignorant of how pacers work. Their contract does not require them to lose. It only requires them to hit a certain point of the race at a certain time. After that, they are free to go to for the win. In the marathon, most stay on and try to win more money.


Theaetetus: My hypothetical is entirely accurate, though, isn't it? Under the IAAF rules, the woman's record would be invalid while the men's record would be valid. Isn't that exactly the current legal situation?

And, since women routinely beat the world records of men from a few decades ago, and world records, by definition, are historical records, then the statement that "no woman will ever beat a male world record holder" is patently false: many women can run faster than some men who have held world records.

Your hypothetical is a strawman.

Is that why you can't answer the question? Here, allow me to answer it for you, since you're apparently afraid to:
"Yes, Theaetetus, under the IAAF rules, the woman's record would be invalid while the men's record would be valid."

Now, having established what's objectively true, we can argue over whether that's sexist and unfair.

You are truly an insufferable pedant.

... or maybe we won't have that discussion, since you've apparently devolved into name-calling. I asked you a reasonable question, provided citations from articles, quoted world record statistics, and you... got upset and started pounding the table.

But yes, clearly, I'm the one acting embarrassingly.

No woman will beat a current men's record holder.

By definition, no man will be be ... blah blah blah white knight blah blah


I am sorry you never got laid.
 
2012-03-20 04:09:14 PM  
www.justsaypictures.com
 
2012-03-20 04:14:41 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Of course the primary difference is physiological... QED.


Respectfully, quod erat demonstrandum requires demonstrandere. Simply saying "of course" doesn't actually count as any evidence. And it doesn't refute any of the evidence that I've presented.

Let's consider it purely objectively: Radcliffe's record beat the men's record of 1956. (new window)
You can't argue with that - it's an objective, verifiable fact.

There are two potential explanations:
1) The primary difference is physiological, and in 50 years women have evolved from "by and large smaller and weaker than men" to the size men were, only 50 years ago. Men, of course, have been similarly evolving to be even bigger. We should expect to see the women's record equal the current men's record in 2062.
2) The primary difference is not physiological, but rather training and money, and elite female athletes now have access to the same level of resources men had 50 years ago.

So, let's see what we can prove about these two, contradictory possibilities:
First, if the physiological difference was that insurmountable 50 year difference - women are 50 years behind men and always will be - then these two lines would be parallel with a constant offset:
www.marathonguide.com
They're not. The trend there is that they'll meet sometime around 2040. That seems to disprove option 1 above.

Second, the average NBA player salary in 1956 was $6,000, roughly 25% over the median household income of $4800 (new window)
That year, the box scores for the NBA playoffs (new window) were:
Finals (4-1): Philadelphia Warriors over Fort Wayne Pistons
Game 1 Sat, March 31 Fort Wayne Pistons 94 @ Philadelphia Warriors 98
Game 2 Sun, April 1 Philadelphia Warriors 83 @ Fort Wayne Pistons 84
Game 3 Tue, April 3 Fort Wayne Pistons 96 @ Philadelphia Warriors 100
Game 4 Thu, April 5 Philadelphia Warriors 107 @ Fort Wayne Pistons 105
Game 5 Sat, April 7 Fort Wayne Pistons 88 @ Philadelphia Warriors 99

The average WNBA salary in 2007 was about $50,000, roughly equal to the median household income of $52,029 (new window).
That year, the box scores for the WNBA playoffs (new window) were:
Game 1: DET 108, PHO 100 | Box | Video
Game 2: PHO 98, DET 70 | Box | Video
Game 3: DET 88, PHO 83 | Box | Video
Game 4: PHO 77, DET 76 | Box | Video
Game 5: PHO 108, DET 92 | Box | Video

If you start drilling into those links, you find that FG percentages were almost identical, for example. It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match... just like a 2007 women's marathon runner and a 1956 men's marathon runner.
Even up the money, and the performance differences disappear. That seems to prove option 2 above.

Accordingly, the primary difference is not physiological. QED.
 
2012-03-20 04:16:09 PM  

zekeburger: Dell


Makes me think of this except yeah, she's pretty attractive.

www.matt-thornton.net
 
2012-03-20 04:18:51 PM  
Theaetetus
Sorry, dude, that one's indefensible. "Your record is invalid because you, a woman, used the same training tools that men use."


It's NOT a training tool.
I guess they're aiming for comparability of the different competitions. I pretty sure there are some regulations regarding the ground and the differences between ups and downs of the track (running downhill most of the time will likely disqualify records from that track).


Having been a marathon helper for 20 years whose main job is to organize a supply point for top runners in a later stage of the race, I know that many female top runners still run in a whole group of men while the top men are usually already all fighting for themselves because pace makers usually can't keep up that long (the one exception being the pace maker who felt so great one day and simply kept going and ended up winning the race ;) ).
I don't know, but that might actually make a little difference that's more than psychological:
the women might be able to save energy by running in the "wind shadow" of the men (like cycling teams do when riding in a line and keep changing who rides in front) for most if not all of the race

CSB:
Or, as it happened one time 10+ years ago, they could help in another way:
The runner clearly didn't want to leave the "bubble" of men she was running in and one of the men split from the group, went towards me ("Give it to me!") and grabbed the women's personal bottle from me.
Such help *could* make a couple seconds of difference because there's one of those personal "top runner" supply points at least every ten kilometers or so.
Well, accidentally missing one of the supply points would make a difference for sure.

But nowadays the top-of-the-tops have (at least in Berlin) a personal helper helper on a bicycle assigned to them. The helper rides a few minutes ahead of the runner and fetches his/her personal bottle at each stand, so that sort of help is more or less built-in now,

Funnily enough, I'm 99% sure that incident happened to me actually with Paula Radcliffe('s bottle):
One thing we have to do is to make sure that a runner doesn't grab the wrong bottle so that the correct bottle is still there when the owner shows up (probably also doping/health/performance reasons, but those aren't our concern right then and there).
So I was a bit worried about handing the bottle to the wrong person, but since she completely ignored me, the guy clearly knew whose bottle he was going for and I didn't see a chance of getting through to her even if I start running after the group, I figured handing it to him was the best thing to do.
Feeling uneasy about it, I made sure to remember the number/name and check my recording of the local TV station's live coverage at home to see what happened to that bottle.
(Hoping to be able to see this on TV might sound like a stretch, but thanks to cheerleaders, bands a stage and whatnot, "our" point was the most popular part of the track besides the finish line, so there were several TV cameras filming us all the time. Well, obviously not us, but the mile of straight road leading to us and the curve behind us with the cheerleaders and band. And since she was one of the leading women, there had to be a lot of live coverage of her. )

/and yeah, I saw her with the bottle at the end of the curve when they showed her passing the cheerleaders. Whew. :)
 
2012-03-20 04:20:45 PM  

bacongood: You seem ignorant of how pacers work. Their contract does not require them to lose.


I'll break my rule and respond to you once more, but I really hope this doesn't cause you to collapse in a sobbing heap of self pity and despair.
I provided a citation - that Running Times article, which discusses the contracts. You've provided nothing other than your own assertions and truthiness. Evidence, my boy. Without it, your already-limited credibility disappears in a puff of insecurity and self-loathing.
 
2012-03-20 04:25:34 PM  

The Voice of Doom: It's NOT a training tool.
I guess they're aiming for comparability of the different competitions.


Nope, Radcliffe's record was in the London Marathon, just like Kannouchi's 2002 record was in the London Marathon. If they were saying hers was invalid because she was running, say, in Boston, that'd be one thing... But it's the same course.
 
2012-03-20 04:32:37 PM  
If you start drilling into those links, you find that FG percentages were almost identical, for example. It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match... just like a 2007 women's marathon runner and a 1956 men's marathon runner.
Even up the money, and the performance differences disappear. That seems to prove option 2 above.


you are joking right? You are a master troll.

I play pickup basketball and I am WAY past my prime and Im fat and out of shape. Me and 4 other out of shape former athletes played the top woman's high school team around our area and it wasnt even close. I was faster then the point guard and Im an old fart with 70 extra pounds. I play against 3rd string high school boys on bad high school teams and they eat me for lunch and laugh at me while they are dunking on me. The physical differences between men and women are WAY more then just a training issue. Nincompoop.

Master trolling though.
 
2012-03-20 04:33:43 PM  

walkingtall: If you start drilling into those links, you find that FG percentages were almost identical, for example. It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match... just like a 2007 women's marathon runner and a 1956 men's marathon runner.
Even up the money, and the performance differences disappear. That seems to prove option 2 above.

you are joking right? You are a master troll.

I play pickup basketball and I am WAY past my prime and Im fat and out of shape. Me and 4 other out of shape former athletes played the top woman's high school team around our area and it wasnt even close. I was faster then the point guard and Im an old fart with 70 extra pounds. I play against 3rd string high school boys on bad high school teams and they eat me for lunch and laugh at me while they are dunking on me. The physical differences between men and women are WAY more then just a training issue. Nincompoop.

Master trolling though.


I'm sorry, I didn't single a single link in your post, while I provided a half dozen, plus charts. Maybe your facts were accidentally left off... would you care to revise your post with some citations and data?
 
2012-03-20 04:34:49 PM  

Theaetetus: It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match


Wow, you are insanely stupid.
 
2012-03-20 04:38:14 PM  
Theaetetus
Not so. From an article at Running Times (new window), far more knowledgeable than I:
In Berlin this year, pacemakers took second and third place across the finish line. Eight years ago, when Paul Tergat became the first man to run sub-2:05 in the marathon (2:04:55), he edged out pacemaker Sammy Korir by less than a second to clinch the record.
Thus, contrary to your assertion, pacers can and do pace winners to the world record.

Accordingly, this is also proven false by those races above:
A male pacer could take a woman all the way to the finish line, because a man running 2:15 is fast but still two miles behind the winners at the major marathons.
A male pacer also takes a male runner all the way to the finish line.


Since Berlin is "my" marathon:
Tergat/Korir was actually the exception I was thinking about (didn't remember/care about this year because 2011 was the first year since the early 90s that I didn't volunteer).
Well, even the article you linked mentions that those were exceptions and not the rule.
 
2012-03-20 04:39:21 PM  
Also, walkingtall, in your rush to declare how much of an athlete you are, you may have missed the point. Allow me to repeat it from above:

"We're all agreed that women can't compete with men on an equal level. The question, rather, is why women can't compete with men on an equal level: physiological differences, training, a combination, etc."

The fact that you can beat a high school girl's team is irrelevant... No one is claiming you can't, or that you imagined that game, or that you were really playing them on your XBox. What we're discussing is why you beat them - whether:
i) it's an innate physiological difference that has changed in a mere 50 years, contrary to everyone's understanding of biology and evolution; or
ii) it's a training issue, as all of the historical data over the past 50 years in multiple sports shows.

It's like we're on chapter 10 and you're still reading the intro. Try to keep up.
 
2012-03-20 04:42:07 PM  

The Voice of Doom: Since Berlin is "my" marathon:
Tergat/Korir was actually the exception I was thinking about (didn't remember/care about this year because 2011 was the first year since the early 90s that I didn't volunteer).
Well, even the article you linked mentions that those were exceptions and not the rule.


I'm not sure what your point is here...
Tergat was paced by a single runner the whole way to the finish line, contrary to what you were saying earlier.
Radcliffe was paced* by a single runner the whole way to the finish line, just like* Tergat.
So why is Radcliffe's record invalid?

*as the article states, Radcliffe wasn't paced just like Tergat. Her pacer was contractually obligated to be off to one side, and she didn't get the benefit of any draft from him. Tergat, on the other hand, got an artificial benefit.
 
2012-03-20 04:43:22 PM  

bahamasorbust: Theaetetus: It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match

Wow, you are insanely stupid.


Why is it that some people consider single line posts that have no argument, no facts, no links, nothing except insults like the above anything other than spamming, worthy of a banhammer? Well, one more for the ignore list.
 
2012-03-20 04:44:24 PM  

Theaetetus: I'm sorry, I didn't single a single link in your post, while I provided a half dozen, plus charts. Maybe your facts were accidentally left off... would you care to revise your post with some citations and data?


Wow, you been watching too much TV and movies. Seeing 5'5" 104 lb women beat the hell out of 2 or 3 200lb+ athletic men at a time has warped your brain. There is not a single elite all women all star team that trained for 5 years by the best and brightest minds in basketball and had every training advantage modern athletics has and I would even say steroids that would even stay in the gym for 5 minutes against the 1956 NBA champion Warriors. I cant prove it scientifically but Im right. And you have been brainwashed by women's lib and I hope you are a very good troll because if you arent I weep for the future.
 
2012-03-20 04:45:03 PM  

Theaetetus: The Voice of Doom: Since Berlin is "my" marathon:
Tergat/Korir was actually the exception I was thinking about (didn't remember/care about this year because 2011 was the first year since the early 90s that I didn't volunteer).
Well, even the article you linked mentions that those were exceptions and not the rule.

I'm not sure what your point is here...
Tergat was paced by a single runner the whole way to the finish line, contrary to what you were saying earlier.


Correction, that wasn't you. My apologies.
 
2012-03-20 04:46:12 PM  

walkingtall: Theaetetus: I'm sorry, I didn't single a single link in your post, while I provided a half dozen, plus charts. Maybe your facts were accidentally left off... would you care to revise your post with some citations and data?

Wow, you been watching too much TV and movies. Seeing 5'5" 104 lb women beat the hell out of 2 or 3 200lb+ athletic men at a time has warped your brain. There is not a single elite all women all star team that trained for 5 years by the best and brightest minds in basketball and had every training advantage modern athletics has and I would even say steroids that would even stay in the gym for 5 minutes against the 1956 NBA champion Warriors. I cant prove it scientifically but Im right. And you have been brainwashed by women's lib and I hope you are a very good troll because if you arent I weep for the future.


Again... No links, no data, no facts, no charts, no numbers. Just spam. Why are you even bothering to post? I'm not going to read your confused ramblings.
 
2012-03-20 04:46:49 PM  

walkingtall: I cant prove it scientifically but Im right.


Also, farkied.
 
2012-03-20 04:48:24 PM  

Theaetetus: You sound very upset about this. I quoted an article that explained the contracts involved, while you've just blustered angrily. Do you have a citation that Korir was not acting as a contractual pacemaker, or are you "arguing from a position of total ignorance, and it's embarrassing" as well as hypocritical?


Please cite your argument that Korir was required to lose to Tergat.

I can't show you a contract, because I do not have one. Tergat viewed Korir as a competitor during the race (p. 153), not as someone who would cede the win at the finish line. He, presumably, knew the rules.


You've posted one article which says nothing about contracts, besides the fact that male pacers for female runners had to stay out of the way of the camera, and you're extrapolating from it a bunch of things that you do not actually know.

On trendlines:

In 1912 the men's marathon world record was 2:40.xx. In 2012 it's 2:03.xx. Should I expect it to be 1:26 in 2112 or 49 minutes in 2212 at an average pace of a bit more than 32 mph?

Woman's Olympians post slower times than top high school boys. Do you think good high school runners have better training than the US Woman's Olympic Team?
 
2012-03-20 04:50:03 PM  

Theaetetus: bahamasorbust: Theaetetus: It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match

Wow, you are insanely stupid.

Why is it that some people consider single line posts that have no argument, no facts, no links, nothing except insults like the above anything other than spamming, worthy of a banhammer? Well, one more for the ignore list.


It's stupid because some of the 1956 Philadelphia Warriors are dead, including Hall of Famer Paul Arizin, and the rest are really, really old. The Warriors would still crush them though.

/Your argument was based upon FG percentages of men vs men and women vs women. I reiterate that it was insanely stupid.
 
2012-03-20 04:51:09 PM  

Theaetetus: From the Kansas State FY2011 budget (new window)
Men's Basketball Tickets $3,329,743
Women's Basketball Tickets $249,728

Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.


Have you ever looked at a budget in your life? Ticket sales are a revenue line item, and they are not part of the expense function. The "training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers" all are expenses for the program.
When you look at the expense statement from the program ( 2005 (new window) because I don't have time to wast on finding more recent numbers) you will see that they are very similar. They spent $2,569,422 on the men and $2,041,787 on the women. The major difference in that number is because the men's head coach was paid more. Yes ticket sales are in different leagues, because women's basketball blows and people would rather watch paint dry. You're probably in the group that thinks that the Lady Husky's beat John Wooden's NCAA win record.
 
2012-03-20 04:56:01 PM  

bahamasorbust: Theaetetus: It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match

Wow, you are insanely stupid.


Even more amazingly, the argument is based solely on FG percentages, as if that raw data proves something. By that logic, the top 7 teams in the WNBA last year would have been able to compete with the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Jokes aside, that's obviously nonsense.
 
2012-03-20 04:57:22 PM  

Cucumber_Breath: The "training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers" all are expenses for the program.
When you look at the expense statement from the program ( 2005 (new window) because I don't have time to wast on finding more recent numbers) you will see that they are very similar. They spent $2,569,422 on the men and $2,041,787 on the women. The major difference in that number is because the men's head coach was paid more.


Actually, according to that link, the second biggest expense for the women was travel. That really can't be counted as training. The ones that are relevant are all less - $1.4M vs. $.85M in salaries; $130k vs. $97k in recruiting; $329k vs. $296k in student aid; $25k vs. $13k in facilities.
Tell you what - if you'd like to come back with numbers that actually support your argument, I'll agree to turn a blind eye to this post.
 
2012-03-20 04:58:41 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: Even more amazingly, the argument is based solely on FG percentages, as if that raw data proves something.


Know how I know you didn't click the links? It's more than just FG percentages. Every statistic is comparable.
 
2012-03-20 04:59:36 PM  

Theaetetus: i) it's an innate physiological difference that has changed in a mere 50 years, contrary to everyone's understanding of biology and evolution; or
ii) it's a training issue, as all of the historical data over the past 50 years in multiple sports shows.


It's both. Genetic freaks on the men's side get you Shaq, who would dominate anyone else who tried to come up against him. There's no analogy on the women's side.

I'm not sure there's a woman at Wilt's level, either.

I'll say that improved training methods have helped erase a lot of the gap, as has the idea of women growing up to be athletes. The key in determining it will be if women actually ever do get equal - there's clearly going to have to be a peak for each gender's dominance.

/also, I might go ahead and mention that since sports were designed by men and for men, men OUGHT to be superior at them. If women had designed sports, we might well suck at them.
 
2012-03-20 04:59:39 PM  

bahamasorbust: Your argument was based upon FG percentages of men vs men and women vs women


Ten of 12 teams in the WNBA last year had a better shooting percentage than the '65-66 Boston Celtics. Therefore, they'd all be competitive with Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones and John Havlicek.
 
2012-03-20 05:02:24 PM  

Theaetetus: Know how I know you didn't click the links? It's more than just FG percentages. Every statistic is comparable.


They do play with different rules (they have a 3-point line, they have a smaller ball, specifically). You realize this, right?
 
2012-03-20 05:03:25 PM  

Theaetetus: bahamasorbust: Theaetetus: It's reasonable to think that the 2007 WNBA champions and the 1956 NBA champions would be an even match

Wow, you are insanely stupid.

Why is it that some people consider single line posts that have no argument, no facts, no links, nothing except insults like the above anything other than spamming, worthy of a banhammer? Well, one more for the ignore list.


Here's a fact for you:
Heights of the starting lineup of the 1956 Philly Warriors: 6-2, 6-4, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8.
Heights of the starting lineup of the 2007 Phoenix Mercury: 5-9, 5-10, 6-0, 6-1, 6-4.

The score would be 150-20. Now knock it off with your ridiculous argument.
 
2012-03-20 05:04:54 PM  

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: You sound very upset about this. I quoted an article that explained the contracts involved, while you've just blustered angrily. Do you have a citation that Korir was not acting as a contractual pacemaker, or are you "arguing from a position of total ignorance, and it's embarrassing" as well as hypocritical?

Please cite your argument that Korir was required to lose to Tergat.

I can't show you a contract, because I do not have one. Tergat viewed Korir as a competitor during the race (p. 153), not as someone who would cede the win at the finish line. He, presumably, knew the rules.

You've posted one article which says nothing about contracts, besides the fact that male pacers for female runners had to stay out of the way of the camera, and you're extrapolating from it a bunch of things that you do not actually know.


Dude, it's pretty clear from your posts here that you know nothing about how professional pacers work. Here (new window)- it's a bit dumbed down, but it might help.

On trendlines:

In 1912 the men's marathon world record was 2:40.xx. In 2012 it's 2:03.xx. Should I expect it to be 1:26 in 2112 or 49 minutes in 2212 at an average pace of a bit more than 32 mph?


imgs.xkcd.com
Trend lines don't have to be constant, you know. You seem to have missed the point that if physiology where the major difference, then those lines would be parallel. They're not.

Woman's Olympians post slower times than top high school boys. Do you think good high school runners have better training than the US Woman's Olympic Team?

Do you have a citation for this high school boy that runs a sub-2:15 marathon? I'm not finding anything on Google. I wouldn't accuse you of making it up, but...
Anyway it's not really relevant, since as we discussed above, there's a lot of money and resources dumped into finding and training elite athletes from elementary school on up.
 
2012-03-20 05:06:18 PM  
Theaetetus
The Voice of Doom:
It's NOT a training tool.
I guess they're aiming for comparability of the different competitions.

Nope, Radcliffe's record was in the London Marathon, just like Kannouchi's 2002 record was in the London Marathon. If they were saying hers was invalid because she was running, say, in Boston, that'd be one thing... But it's the same course.


I meant the whole competition (e.g. male pacers for women or not), not the course.


Completely unrelated: the course wasn't necessarily the same.
For example, the Berlin Marathon had some course changes over the years. There was at least one major one even after the one where they added parts from Eastern Berlin to the course after the reunification; I think sometime between 2000 and 2003 someone figured it would make sense to start and finish at the same location ( not sure if they used to transfer the runner's clothes and stuff from the start to the finish or if the runners had to go back to the start to pick up their stuff) and they probably also worked in some thought about optimizing necessary road blocks.
Since the course changes, we don't have the cheerleaders anymore.
Well, at least the massage girls from the physiotherapist's school moved with us since they're part of the supply point and not of the scenery.
 
2012-03-20 05:17:03 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus: i) it's an innate physiological difference that has changed in a mere 50 years, contrary to everyone's understanding of biology and evolution; or
ii) it's a training issue, as all of the historical data over the past 50 years in multiple sports shows.

It's both. Genetic freaks on the men's side get you Shaq, who would dominate anyone else who tried to come up against him. There's no analogy on the women's side.
I'm not sure there's a woman at Wilt's level, either.


I'm not sure you understand my point... you may possibly been mislead about what I'm saying by a bunch of the trolls in here. I'm not saying that there's a woman now who could beat a man now. There are significant physical differences.
My point is that those physical differences may be the result of training, recruiting efforts, and athlete selection and grooming from early ages in a very wealthy and profit-driven industry, rather than the SRY protein or the Y chromosome. And that's proven by the fact that the athletic performance of women now is at least equal to the athletic performance of men 50 years ago... even though those sex genes haven't significantly changed.

I'll say that improved training methods have helped erase a lot of the gap, as has the idea of women growing up to be athletes. The key in determining it will be if women actually ever do get equal - there's clearly going to have to be a peak for each gender's dominance.

Going by the historical trends for marathon world record times in the graph shown above, the women's record will asymptotically approach the men's record. As the progression of record times slows, then we'll start to see how much of a difference is really innate. It may end up being less than a minute over a 2 hour race.
 
2012-03-20 05:17:22 PM  

Theaetetus: Cucumber_Breath: The "training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers" all are expenses for the program.
When you look at the expense statement from the program ( 2005 (new window) because I don't have time to wast on finding more recent numbers) you will see that they are very similar. They spent $2,569,422 on the men and $2,041,787 on the women. The major difference in that number is because the men's head coach was paid more.

Actually, according to that link, the second biggest expense for the women was travel. That really can't be counted as training. The ones that are relevant are all less - $1.4M vs. $.85M in salaries; $130k vs. $97k in recruiting; $329k vs. $296k in student aid; $25k vs. $13k in facilities.
Tell you what - if you'd like to come back with numbers that actually support your argument, I'll agree to turn a blind eye to this post.


I like how you left out some key numbers to support your straw-man argument.
Support Staff Salaries $76,294 v. $228,300
Equipment $30,558 v. $75,298
 
2012-03-20 05:23:49 PM  

IAmRight: Beating a scrub team in women's basketball (a game that doesn't even have a shot clock, much less a 24 second clock) is not.


Your ignorance is showing.
 
2012-03-20 05:25:00 PM  

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Know how I know you didn't click the links? It's more than just FG percentages. Every statistic is comparable.

They do play with different rules (they have a 3-point line, they have a smaller ball, specifically). You realize this, right?


[notsureifserious.jpg]

In 1956, the NBA (new window) didn't have any 3-point line, the lane was only 12 feet, and as near as I can find online, there wasn't a standard size ball.
 
2012-03-20 05:26:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Do you have a citation for this high school boy that runs a sub-2:15 marathon? I'm not finding anything on Google. I wouldn't accuse you of making it up, but...
Anyway it's not really relevant, since as we discussed above, there's a lot of money and resources dumped into finding and training elite athletes from elementary school on up.



Wow. someone once told me that a lot of people have really been brainwashed into believing men and women are exactly the same except for society pushing them one way or the other. I looked at him and said that was stupid. Nobody could really believe that. Then 20 years later of watching tiny women beat up multiple men on TV and movies and 20 years of "women's studies" telling us that women are not only equal to men in every way but vastly superior to them in many ways and this is what we got. A person really trying to convince the world at large that a womens basketball team from 2012 could beat the best mens team from 60 years ago because the only difference between men and women is training and societal rules. I tried to watch the WNBA. I really did. I love basketball. It was basketball when there was no other. I get much more enjoyment watching men's pickup games with old white guys. Logic tells anyoine this is silly. But mass delusion seems to be the order of the day.
 
2012-03-20 05:26:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Dude, it's pretty clear from your posts here that you know nothing about how professional pacers work. Here (new window)- it's a bit dumbed down, but it might help.


So you have no citation, and you'd rather post a condescending link than admit that you're making things up.

Theaetetus:

Do you have a citation for this high school boy that runs a sub-2:15 marathon? I'm not finding anything on Google. I wouldn't accuse you of making it up, but...

Actually, you just did.

Marathons at that age are pretty unusual.

An 18 year old Ethiopian ran 2:06.xx, though. He'd be a high school student if he were here.

Anyway it's not really relevant, since as we discussed above, there's a lot of money and resources dumped into finding and training elite athletes from elementary school on up.

Yeah, lots of money is being dumped into finding 49.xx 400m and 1:54.xx 800m boys high school runners who could challenge women's world leaders. Sure.
 
2012-03-20 05:27:31 PM  

Cucumber_Breath: Theaetetus:
$1.4M vs. $.85M in salaries...

I like how you left out some key numbers to support your straw-man argument.
Support Staff Salaries $76,294 v. $228,300


lol

/"We have parity at our school... We have 10 fully-tenured male professors and 20 female adjunct professors, so the salary totals are comparable."
 
2012-03-20 05:28:02 PM  

Theaetetus: IAmRight: Theaetetus: Know how I know you didn't click the links? It's more than just FG percentages. Every statistic is comparable.

They do play with different rules (they have a 3-point line, they have a smaller ball, specifically). You realize this, right?

[notsureifserious.jpg]

In 1956, the NBA (new window) didn't have any 3-point line, the lane was only 12 feet, and as near as I can find online, there wasn't a standard size ball.


He was talking about the women, Einstein. They have a 3 point line and they use a smaller sized ball.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report