Could Caitlyn Clark compete with D1 men?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think you're explaining anything. I'm just glad Muggsy Bogues and Spud Webb and a million other players never listened to detractors. I'm sure they heard YOU CAN'T way before they ever heard you can.

But they did.

LOL, both those guys had more muscle and strength than the girl. Still not sure why you keep bringing up smaller stronger men.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, both those guys had more muscle and strength than the girl. Still not sure why you keep bringing up smaller stronger men.

To demonstrate that there are no absolutes. I've already explained that. And my reason for bringing them up is because I don't support the idea of absolutes.

[bk400]

Caitlyn Clark is a joy to watch. Just like Mia Hamm, Lisa Leslie, and Allyson Felix were joys to watch. But if you made them compete against Sergio Ramos, Shaq, and Michael Johnson, it would set the women's movement back a generation because half of the world's population (largely outside the US) are looking to see women fail.

[Belfast1933]

Breaking news??

Maybe we won't have to just speculate:

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-...5m-offer-clark

[G1911]

I have no doubt women will crack into the mens leagues of the major sports over the next 20 years. It won't be because they can perform at that level, but because it is a part of the ideology that comes before physiology, human biology, and meritocratic rosters.

This PC delusion that women can do the same physical things as men to the same level, and it's more extreme form that has taken hold in several states that one cannot even define what a woman is in any terms besides a circular appeal to self-authority is absolutely crazy, but that's ideology. Conclusions writ by social or political need rarely make any sense.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have no doubt women will crack into the mens leagues of the major sports over the next 20 years. It won't be because they can perform at that level, but because it is a part of the ideology that comes before physiology, human biology, and meritocratic rosters.

This PC delusion that women can do the same physical things as men to the same level, and it's more extreme form that has taken hold in several states that one cannot even define what a woman is in any terms besides a circular appeal to self-authority is absolutely crazy, but that's ideology. Conclusions writ by social or political need rarely make any sense.

I am an optimist and therefore disagree with you. We're already seeing backlash against men who converted to women (I still can't figure out if this is called a trans man or a trans woman, so whatever) competing as woman in swimming. No one wants to see altered men in skirts playing tennis against natural women. It's weird. And sponsors and advertisers will make that view known behind closed doors.

[Beercan collector]

Her lack of a vertical leap would get her destroyed .
Against women she takes one step back to the left and is wide open ,
Against men she could take seven steps back to the left and still not be able to get a shot off

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Her lack of a vertical leap would get her destroyed .
Against women she takes one step back to the left and is wide open ,
Against men she could take seven steps back to the left and still not be able to get a shot off

Hell, there are countless men who can shoot the lights out but would be useless at a competitive level because they lack the overall athleticism. Next time you people who think Caitlin can play against men watch a game, pay attention to the amount of contact and physicality. She would get the crap beat out of her, and no disrespect to her, she's a wonderful player.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bk400

I am an optimist and therefore disagree with you. We're already seeing backlash against men who converted to women (I still can't figure out if this is called a trans man or a trans woman, so whatever) competing as woman in swimming. No one wants to see altered men in skirts playing tennis against natural women. It's weird. And sponsors and advertisers will make that view known behind closed doors.

I think the difference is that this version of the same root problem of not understanding the actual differences between the genders is that it splits the victims. Women are a victim group in the ideology, alongside the people who believe that reality is dictated by whatever they claim to be, and a bunch of women getting wrecked by a person almost everyone knows is actually a man is difficult to sort out within the confines of the ideology and pits victim groups against each other.

If a big league team put an actual woman on their roster they would get universal acclaim from the league, the media, and the sporting press and get a huge national PR drive and boost for their ground breaking display of diversity and inclusion. If she gives up 12 runs in 2 innings, it will be put down to the fault of some "ism" and coverage will quietly move.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have no doubt women will crack into the mens leagues of the major sports over the next 20 years. It won't be because they can perform at that level, but because it is a part of the ideology that comes before physiology, human biology, and meritocratic rosters.

This PC delusion that women can do the same physical things as men to the same level, and it's more extreme form that has taken hold in several states that one cannot even define what a woman is in any terms besides a circular appeal to self-authority is absolutely crazy, but that's ideology. Conclusions writ by social or political need rarely make any sense.

I just can't see it within basketball as there is no position in which it seems possible without massive rule changes.

I can see the NFL having a FG Kicker, or kicker/punter if they successfully eliminate returns in short order. Manon Rheaume may have only been in an exhibition game, but the goalie position in hockey does lend itself to female possibilities. Perhaps the MLB can find a slot at pitcher for a converted softball player. Submarine pitchers are not that uncommon.

I can't imagine any position unless it's a wasted bench slot within the game for an Eddie Gaedel type PC sideshow that works in the NBA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I just can't see it within basketball as there is no position in which it seems possible without massive rule changes.

I can see the NFL having a FG Kicker, or kicker/punter if they successfully eliminate returns in short order. Manon Rheaume may have only been in an exhibition game, but the goalie position in hockey does lend itself to female possibilities. Perhaps the MLB can find a slot at pitcher for a converted softball player. Submarine pitchers are not that uncommon.

I can't imagine any position unless it's a wasted bench slot within the game for an Eddie Gaedel type PC sideshow that works in the NBA.

No disrespect to her but Manon was a publicity stunt.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No disrespect to her but Manon was a publicity stunt.

She did play in the IHL for five seasons after the try out.

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have no doubt women will crack into the mens leagues of the major sports over the next 20 years. It won't be because they can perform at that level, but because it is a part of the ideology that comes before physiology, human biology, and meritocratic rosters.

This PC delusion that women can do the same physical things as men to the same level, and it's more extreme form that has taken hold in several states that one cannot even define what a woman is in any terms besides a circular appeal to self-authority is absolutely crazy, but that's ideology. Conclusions writ by social or political need rarely make any sense.

Greg, but being a successful team sport player is more than just physical skill and strength, right? Anticipation, intelligence, experience, preparation, etc. don't require most bench press reps, fastest 40 times or highest vertical leap.

I'm not betting against this in my lifetime... there's more to measuring a team sport success than a stop watch

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

Greg, but being a successful team sport player is more than just physical skill and strength, right? Anticipation, intelligence, experience, preparation, etc. don't require most bench press reps, fastest 40 times or highest vertical leap.

I'm not betting against this in my lifetime... there's more to measuring a team sport success than a stop watch

Sports are very physical. Other things like "anticipation" and "intelligence" can help one high level player over another high level player. There is an extremely obvious reason the NBA is not filled with "geniuses" who cannot physically compete with the rest of the players - because it is a very physical sport. The physical is a prerequisite. If I dedicated my entire life to a sport and became #1 in preparation for that sport, I still wouldn't make it because I do not have the prerequisite.

What people want to find and consider virtuously politically correct and is actually true are not the same thing. Women athletes lose to men far below their 'level' whenever it is tried, for the obvious physical reasons and the differences between men and women. Women are different. They are built different. Both genders have plusses and minuses compared to the other. It is simply reality. A woman has not and will not seriously compete in a very physical high-level sporting realm whether we like that or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sports are very physical. Other things like "anticipation" and "intelligence" can help one high level player over another high level player. There is an extremely obvious reason the NBA is not filled with "geniuses" who cannot physically compete with the rest of the players - because it is a very physical sport. The physical is a prerequisite. If I dedicated my entire life to a sport and became #1 in preparation for that sport, I still wouldn't make it because I do not have the prerequisite.

What people want to find and consider virtuously politically correct and is actually true are not the same thing. Women athletes lose to men far below their 'level' whenever it is tried, for the obvious physical reasons and the differences between men and women. Women are different. They are built different. Both genders have plusses and minuses compared to the other. It is simply reality. A woman has not and will not seriously compete in a very physical high-level sporting realm whether we like that or not.

Likely the most astonishing (and underappreciated) female athlete the world has ever known, Katie Ledecky, is still at her absolute peak (a record shattering, truly staggering, insane 1500) 6 percent or so slower than the top male. And the gap of course gets much much bigger as you move to sports with contact.