|
On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
I googled this and came across a few dubious references. Super long distance running being referred to, things like Yoga and other activities requiring stretching. Along with a few sports where there are no male competitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár shows that it is possible to compete for females and perhaps it is just a smaller amount of participants in the classical competitive scenes. Most competitions used today were designed for men, so it isn't all that strange that it favours them in results.
For classical olympic sports I found the following: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/08/daily-chart-olympics . It shows the difference isn't as large as many think it is but still noticeable.
As for the topic itself, I wonder why the NBA doesn't go with swim brief as only allowed dressing code with a few temporary tattoos for sponsorship logos. It has the same logic behind it?
|
On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Lol so people seriously consider this better than regular hoopball?
We have found SO MANY different ways to compete with eachother in a sportslike manner yet we still try to make EVERY of those ways to work as a monetizied industry.
Pretty pathetic.
If people don't watch WNBA then people don't watch it. Simple as that.
Our economics just think if you push enough into a market sooner or later the consumer will eat it.
On the first page, first post, you can see the result of genius marketing guys pushing a said product into a market.
Ignore it, don't respond to it, it will go away.
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
edit: @Hattori Hanzo, you have some twisted view on humanity and sports.
Care to back up your claim, misandrist?
Any physical activity that relies on speed, power, focus and teamwork to succeed rarely have women doing better. As proven by USAF gender research into equal treatment of women in all arms and ranks of the USAF. Women are biologically different from men. Hormones released by the respective reproductive organs cause physiological changes in physique, reflexes and ability. Science confirms it.
Edit: please google physiological differences between gender.
If that statement offends you, you might be a misandrist.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On September 29 2012 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Lol so people seriously consider this better than regular hoopball?
We have found SO MANY different ways to compete with eachother in a sportslike manner yet we still try to make EVERY of those ways to work as a monetizied industry.
Pretty pathetic.
If people don't watch WNBA then people don't watch it. Simple as that.
Our economics just think if you push enough into a market sooner or later the consumer will eat it.
On the first page, first post, you can see the result of genius marketing guys pushing a said product into a market.
Ignore it, don't respond to it, it will go away.
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
edit: @Hattori Hanzo, you have some twisted view on humanity and sports. Care to back up your claim, misandrist? Any physical activity that relies on speed, power, focus and teamwork to succeed rarely have women doing better. As proven by USAF gender research into equal treatment of women in all arms and ranks of the USAF. Women are biologically different from men. Hormones released by the respective reproductive organs cause physiological changes in physique, reflexes and ability. Science confirms it. If that statement offends you, you might be a misandrist.
We do realise this you know? Nobody here is claiming the WNBA is on par with the NBA, or that people should be forced to watch it. Where are you getting this from? I don't watch a lot of woman's sport, but there are a lot of dedicated women who play sports and seeing leagues like this set up, not to mention Sepp Blatter's infamous comments on women's football and it must be a bit of a kick in the teeth. Is that concept that hard to understand?
Not wanting women's sport to be reduced to sexist gimmickry = being man-hating. Yes that makes a lot of sense.
|
On September 29 2012 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Lol so people seriously consider this better than regular hoopball?
We have found SO MANY different ways to compete with eachother in a sportslike manner yet we still try to make EVERY of those ways to work as a monetizied industry.
Pretty pathetic.
If people don't watch WNBA then people don't watch it. Simple as that.
Our economics just think if you push enough into a market sooner or later the consumer will eat it.
On the first page, first post, you can see the result of genius marketing guys pushing a said product into a market.
Ignore it, don't respond to it, it will go away.
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
edit: @Hattori Hanzo, you have some twisted view on humanity and sports. Care to back up your claim, misandrist? Any physical activity that relies on speed, power, focus and teamwork to succeed rarely have women doing better. As proven by USAF gender research into equal treatment of women in all arms and ranks of the USAF. Women are biologically different from men. Hormones released by the respective reproductive organs cause physiological changes in physique, reflexes and ability. Science confirms it. If that statement offends you, you might be a misandrist.
Care to read my post and comprehend it? Or did googling all those smart words took up too much of your precious time to really read posts and reply to them 
On September 29 2012 19:26 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
I googled this and came across a few dubious references. Super long distance running being referred to, things like Yoga and other activities requiring stretching. Along with a few sports where there are no male competitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár shows that it is possible to compete for females and perhaps it is just a smaller amount of participants in the classical competitive scenes. Most competitions used today were designed for men, so it isn't all that strange that it favours them in results. For classical olympic sports I found the following: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/08/daily-chart-olympics . It shows the difference isn't as large as many think it is but still noticeable.
Interesting links and yea thats what I implied by the sentence you quote.
|
On September 29 2012 19:49 bluQ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Lol so people seriously consider this better than regular hoopball?
We have found SO MANY different ways to compete with eachother in a sportslike manner yet we still try to make EVERY of those ways to work as a monetizied industry.
Pretty pathetic.
If people don't watch WNBA then people don't watch it. Simple as that.
Our economics just think if you push enough into a market sooner or later the consumer will eat it.
On the first page, first post, you can see the result of genius marketing guys pushing a said product into a market.
Ignore it, don't respond to it, it will go away.
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
edit: @Hattori Hanzo, you have some twisted view on humanity and sports. Care to back up your claim, misandrist? Any physical activity that relies on speed, power, focus and teamwork to succeed rarely have women doing better. As proven by USAF gender research into equal treatment of women in all arms and ranks of the USAF. Women are biologically different from men. Hormones released by the respective reproductive organs cause physiological changes in physique, reflexes and ability. Science confirms it. If that statement offends you, you might be a misandrist. Care to read my post and comprehend it? Or did googling all those smart words took up too much of your precious time to really read posts and reply to them Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 19:26 Yurie wrote:On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
I googled this and came across a few dubious references. Super long distance running being referred to, things like Yoga and other activities requiring stretching. Along with a few sports where there are no male competitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár shows that it is possible to compete for females and perhaps it is just a smaller amount of participants in the classical competitive scenes. Most competitions used today were designed for men, so it isn't all that strange that it favours them in results. For classical olympic sports I found the following: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/08/daily-chart-olympics . It shows the difference isn't as large as many think it is but still noticeable. Interesting links and yea thats what I implied by the sentence you quote.
You first start matured name calling when I ask for your evidence for your claims.
Then you agree with posts include findings that confirm my arguments.
You seem to have a disconnect with reality.
|
On September 29 2012 20:04 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 19:49 bluQ wrote:On September 29 2012 19:30 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Lol so people seriously consider this better than regular hoopball?
We have found SO MANY different ways to compete with eachother in a sportslike manner yet we still try to make EVERY of those ways to work as a monetizied industry.
Pretty pathetic.
If people don't watch WNBA then people don't watch it. Simple as that.
Our economics just think if you push enough into a market sooner or later the consumer will eat it.
On the first page, first post, you can see the result of genius marketing guys pushing a said product into a market.
Ignore it, don't respond to it, it will go away.
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
edit: @Hattori Hanzo, you have some twisted view on humanity and sports. Care to back up your claim, misandrist? Any physical activity that relies on speed, power, focus and teamwork to succeed rarely have women doing better. As proven by USAF gender research into equal treatment of women in all arms and ranks of the USAF. Women are biologically different from men. Hormones released by the respective reproductive organs cause physiological changes in physique, reflexes and ability. Science confirms it. If that statement offends you, you might be a misandrist. Care to read my post and comprehend it? Or did googling all those smart words took up too much of your precious time to really read posts and reply to them On September 29 2012 19:26 Yurie wrote:On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
I googled this and came across a few dubious references. Super long distance running being referred to, things like Yoga and other activities requiring stretching. Along with a few sports where there are no male competitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár shows that it is possible to compete for females and perhaps it is just a smaller amount of participants in the classical competitive scenes. Most competitions used today were designed for men, so it isn't all that strange that it favours them in results. For classical olympic sports I found the following: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/08/daily-chart-olympics . It shows the difference isn't as large as many think it is but still noticeable. Interesting links and yea thats what I implied by the sentence you quote. You first start matured name calling when I ask for your evidence for your claims. Then you agree with posts include findings that confirm my arguments. You seem to have a disconnect with reality.
You dear sir need to learn to read articles and posts.
The "Daily chart Olympics: Women against men" states that it depends on the sport if women are "better" or can compete with men (historical women weren't allowed so it is clear that techniques etc. were developed for the physic of a man).
You are just some really angry dude who feels threatened that women can someday have the same attention because they did something amazing in physical-sports, or u are just arugin for the sake of arguing.
And again, you never replied to the essence of my post.
No one is debating that a woman boxer can't stand up to a man. But I am arguing that Bikini Basketball is not even a sport. It is just a marketing strategy to push into a market which isn't even there.(not to mention it is sexist)
THAT is economics which you should maybe read up instead of sprouting all those biological semi-terminology around.
|
You sir, need to learn how to debate. It is the responsibility of the challenger to present their facts against the current prevailing de-facto opinion.
In this situation, that women need to appear attractive to attract spectators and their respect rather than relying on purely on physical qualifiers.
I refuse to answer your posts directly because they are simply speculative maybes and rambling. Without scientific backing of your speculation, it's really not worth commenting.
Therefore your name calling, is childish.
My scientific evidence:
The research of the United State Armed Forces on viability of gender equality:
The USAF after almost a decade of research found that for women to gain the operational combat readiness of an infantry man would upon reaching the necessary stamina and strength to carry the same loads, fire the same accuracy as a infantry man, women ended on average 10-20% larger than their male counterparts.
Needless to say, I can't find the paper on google as it still is a controversial subject as it was then, I read almost a decade ago.
My argument is that Bikini basketball has to be a clothing requirement for the sport or else they'll eventually be dominated by women who have no qualms sacrificing their physique to the altar of winning.
Compare this:
![[image loading]](http://cdn.ph.upi.com/sv/upi/UPI-93551348842808/2012/1/bf804ad7d810b207a7eea989f8072b08/Williams-sisters-out-of-China-Open.jpg)
with this:
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r2lfX0H5Zbs/T_sgDRF4CpI/AAAAAAAAHeI/K2Ysd9ys5oc/s1600/maria-sharapova.jpg)
I don't know about you, but as a future father, I would want my daughters to end up as attractive wife material to a potential husband after their contribution to a sport. Turning into a massive she-hulk is not my idea of marriageable material.
Let's agree to disagree and put it down to cultural differences.
|
On September 29 2012 17:37 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 14:21 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Guys, women dress different from men.
They are different creatures, the critisms of WNBA are deserved, we spectators are expected to "support" WNBA because women's rights. No. That's fucking misandry.
We watch games because they're exciting and fun to watch. Not because we have to. That's patronizing as having to hire a woman not for her qualifications but because "it's fair".
The BBA makes sense even if the name is nonsense, since technically men in bikinis could enter a team as well.
The visual appeal of the uniforms give it a great marketing edge over WNBA. You think these women will be hired because of their qualifications with the sport?
But even the WNBA players aren't hired because they are the best basketball players around but because they are woman so isn't that sexist? Whereas with this bikini basketball league the woman hired will be the best looking basketball players i.e top in their league. Its just fact that men are physical bigger and stronger than woman while woman are physically more attractive and sexual than men. So both the NBA and Bikini Basketball League will just be emphasising both genders strengths.
|
Serena Williams uses steroids, so it's not a realistic example of what happens in women sports.
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On September 29 2012 22:29 Grumbels wrote:
Serena Williams uses steroids, so it's not a realistic example of what happens in women sports.
Would you happen to have proof of this accusation? If not take it elsewhere. Baseless slander is not acceptable on TL.
|
On September 29 2012 22:33 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 22:29 Grumbels wrote:
Serena Williams uses steroids, so it's not a realistic example of what happens in women sports. Would you happen to have proof of this accusation? If not take it elsewhere. Baseless slander is not acceptable on TL.
Uh, it's well-known to people that follow tennis. I'm just using it as an example that women in sports don't automatically turn into monsters.
http://89.167.143.76/showthread.php?t=18222&page=6#59 do you think something like that is because of just hard work in the gym?
|
On September 29 2012 19:07 bluQ wrote:
Lol so people seriously consider this better than regular hoopball?
We have found SO MANY different ways to compete with eachother in a sportslike manner yet we still try to make EVERY of those ways to work as a monetizied industry.
Pretty pathetic.
If people don't watch WNBA then people don't watch it. Simple as that.
Our economics just think if you push enough into a market sooner or later the consumer will eat it.
On the first page, first post, you can see the result of genius marketing guys pushing a said product into a market.
Ignore it, don't respond to it, it will go away.
Oh and btw. women are better at some sports, so are men.
edit: @Hattori Hanzo, you have some twisted view on humanity and sports.
Let's be serious, regular "hoop"ball is pretty shitty to begin with. The ESPN highlights are fun enough but watching the game go by? Pretty repetitive
|
On September 29 2012 22:44 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 22:33 Nyovne wrote:On September 29 2012 22:29 Grumbels wrote:
Serena Williams uses steroids, so it's not a realistic example of what happens in women sports. Would you happen to have proof of this accusation? If not take it elsewhere. Baseless slander is not acceptable on TL. Uh, it's well-known to people that follow tennis. I'm just using it as an example that women in sports don't automatically turn into monsters. http://89.167.143.76/showthread.php?t=18222&page=6#59 do you think something like that is because of just hard work in the gym?
You really can't be this dense.
|
On September 30 2012 00:02 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 22:44 Grumbels wrote:On September 29 2012 22:33 Nyovne wrote:On September 29 2012 22:29 Grumbels wrote:
Serena Williams uses steroids, so it's not a realistic example of what happens in women sports. Would you happen to have proof of this accusation? If not take it elsewhere. Baseless slander is not acceptable on TL. Uh, it's well-known to people that follow tennis. I'm just using it as an example that women in sports don't automatically turn into monsters. http://89.167.143.76/showthread.php?t=18222&page=6#59 do you think something like that is because of just hard work in the gym? You really can't be this dense.
I don't understand your post, what are you saying?
|
On September 29 2012 22:44 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 22:33 Nyovne wrote:On September 29 2012 22:29 Grumbels wrote:
Serena Williams uses steroids, so it's not a realistic example of what happens in women sports. Would you happen to have proof of this accusation? If not take it elsewhere. Baseless slander is not acceptable on TL. Uh, it's well-known to people that follow tennis. I'm just using it as an example that women in sports don't automatically turn into monsters. http://89.167.143.76/showthread.php?t=18222&page=6#59 do you think something like that is because of just hard work in the gym?
This is a source? Its a forum site????
and excuse me for not being well known in tennis...
|
5930 Posts
Throwing it out there but doping tests in professional sports have been extremely poor. The only time you can actually catch them riding dirty on this shit is if you get the police into it (Operation Puerto) or do a random drug test on the fly (has happened before). A long time ago, cyclists used urinate through their hands, for instance, to mix in a powder that would render the test obsolete. Athletes have managed to dodge announced drugs tests a billion times before through methods like this.
Serena has definitely dodged a random drug test by running into her panic room before. Who knows if she, or any other tennis player, is doping but some athletes don't help matters by acting suspiciously when it comes to drug tests. There was a well researched blogpost that covered Nadal's recovery periods, sudden injuries, dropouts, victories, etc. that either suggested that he was a glass superman or using some really awesome shit. But just like Serena, there's no way to prove them guilty (or innocent) unless you force them to take a random, unannounced drug test.
Innocent unless proven guilty but a cynic would probably assume all of these athletes have doped at least once before. I don't agree with damning people just because they perform well...but for a lot of people interested in professional sport, its pretty hard to believe that a lot of these athletes are perfectly clean. Especially if you follow cycling, since one Spanish police investigation basically caught entire teams using performance enhancing drugs and literally everyone good has admitted to taking drugs just to trap Armstrong.
|
How is this any different from beach volleyball and to a lesser extent, tennis?
|
|
|
5930 Posts
Because one is, quite easy to argue, outwardly misogynistic and the other is not.
|
Would rather watch bagel heads playing b-ball--
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
