PDA

View Full Version : Women vs, Men



12-22-2002, 03:18 AM
Why is there a separation of gender in major pool tournaments? It seems that certain physical attributes accredited towards gender would not have any effect in this sport. For this reason I question the gender separation in a game such as chess, as well. On a larger scale there are women in pretty much any sport that could easily out perform myself.

I can understand the historical argument that in the past women did not have as great of access to various sports/games because of gender inequality, etc. It seems that in contemporary times we would have eliminated gender segregation to some extent, but apparently not.

bigbro6060
12-22-2002, 06:36 AM
it's about the talent pool. There are way more males out there playing pool than women so it stands to reason that the males who rise to the top will be just a bit better than the females who rise to the top because there is greater competition for the males.

The women at the top are very very good but i think just a notch below the top men. Efren played Jeanette Lee a few years ago i think it was and gave her a pretty comprehensivfe whooping.

silverbullet
12-22-2002, 06:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote soygordo:</font><hr> Why is there a separation of gender in major pool tournaments? It seems that certain physical attributes accredited towards gender would not have any effect in this sport. For this reason I question the gender separation in a game such as chess, as well. On a larger scale there are women in pretty much any sport that could easily out perform myself.

I can understand the historical argument that in the past women did not have as great of access to various sports/games because of gender inequality, etc. It seems that in contemporary times we would have eliminated gender segregation to some extent, but apparently not. <hr /></blockquote>

The men are stronger and typically pot more balls on the break. Other than that, I do agree that there are more better men than women players. Of course there are more men than women and that is a factor. One thing I have noticed.

It seems that the men do not play safe as much as the women and are less reticent to go for it, take chances on difficult shots.

I am only a student of the game and have not seen as many matches as some on here, but on the ones I have seen : the women are methodical and somewhat catious, the men are bold brazen and imo have more of that killer instinct. Both appear to have good focus and good technique (for the most part)imo.

blu

Popcorn
12-22-2002, 09:24 AM
There are so few women that could even begin to compete it would be silly. They would still require the women's tour barring men to have a sport for themselves. That would be a little unfair. They have segregated tournaments but could enter men's tournaments. I see no problem with it the way it is, it is better for all. The interesting thing in the women's tournaments is, the top players, and there are very few, win every tournament. Except for a very few, most just play pretty good. The women are playing better but not even close to the men. I don't offer any explanation, that is just a fact.

12-22-2002, 10:19 AM
Karen Corr has consistently placed in the top 10 in the Joss Tour events she has entered over the past few years. During one Joss tournament, she beat Mika Immonen. This is not too shabby a record. Her Joss Tour finishes this year:

4th place: Stop 13
7th place: Stop 14
2nd place: Stop 15
9th place: Stop 16
7th place: Stop 18

Give the woman’s game time to mature. Eventually you will see something close to parity since there is no physiological reason baring women from excelling at this sport. Most men should have a better break than most women. That would be the greatest and probably only advantage the men would have as a group.

Steve

Popcorn
12-22-2002, 11:34 AM
You could probably take a good number of the men players on that tour who are not even pro players, they take off work to play, that would have a similar or better record. I would say that a vast majority, with a few exceptions, of the players on the women's tour would not even finishing in the money.

Cueless Joey
12-22-2002, 11:51 AM
Years ago, Jeanette Lee took a prop bet. She played the 9-ball ghost on a very generous table. She lost badly. This was when Allison and Karen weren't here yet. She was the top player then. Now, how many shortstops out there can beat the 9-ball ghost? Hell, I know at least 3 players at my local hall that can do it easily. Efren would give Karen or Allison the 7 out easily.
Let's face it men are better in most facets in live than women. Playing piano doesn't require any strength. There are as many female pianists out there but the best are still men. The best female bowler is not going to beat the best male bowler.
My theory is men just "dig" deeper in their heads and are more competitive and are more ruthless.

12-22-2002, 11:54 AM
I agree that the vast majority of the players on the Women’s Tour would have a hard time duplicating Corr’s accomplishments on the Joss Tour. However, that does not refute my argument, which can be stated as follows: More women are playing pool, their level of play has improved and will continue to improve and, most importantly, there is no known reason to believe that they will not eventually equal the skill set currently held by most male players. Current performance does not predict future performance when every variable has not been considered and explained.

To put the matter differently, if you know of any reason which will keep women from improving till they reach parity with the men, share it please. Even the break is not a crucial difference in this regard. As important as the break is in 9-ball, Corry Deuel and Mika Immonen have shown that a soft break can be as effective, if not more so, as a hard break.

Steve

12-22-2002, 11:55 AM
Karen does play good, but her finishes on the Joss Tour do not mean much in the way of her competing with the top men. The Joss is probably the strongest regional tour in the country, but it is just that - a regional tour. About 50% of the field plays A-speed or below. Of the rest, mostly it is just Open-level. There are maybe 6 or 7 legitimate pros in the average Joss field. It is entirely possible that with the right draw, a good Open-level player can come in the top spots.

As to her beating Mika, that is a great accomplishment. But remember, for her to do really well in a pro tournament, she'd have to beat 5 Mikas in a row.

12-22-2002, 01:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nobody_Knows:</font><hr>As to her beating Mika, that is a great accomplishment. But remember, for her to do really well in a pro tournament, she'd have to beat 5 Mikas in a row. <hr /></blockquote>

And Corr will be unable to defeat 4 or 5 strong male players because…?

If Corr has the game to beat one top player, she can beat more than one per tournament. After all, no male player dominates like Corr and Fisher. No one wins every major tournament or nearly so. The top men too loose their share of matches to pro and even to less than pro level players. Why not Corr, or Fisher, for that matter? Why must they be unable to run through an open event at some point in time? Why must future female players lack the ability to win open pro events?

Steve

landshark1002000
12-22-2002, 05:21 PM
It's interesting that Corr and Fischer come from a different pool tradition, snooker, and they dominate Women's nine ball. They've effectively overcome former #1, Jeanette Lee.
Snooker's smaller balls and smaller pockets demand even greater accuracy from its players than nine ball. The open bridge and lowered head of snooker allows for better visual control, imo. The greater demands of their tradition plus its technical difference go far toward explaining why Corr and Fischer are the leaders of women's nine ball today.
The current race is to catch these two. Will their competitors innovate, stay the same, or try to emulate?
IMO, this current race is an important first stage in raising the bar for women. The presence of Fischer and Corr will spur the women pros to improve their play or get shut out from the top spot.
Every pro opportunity for women to play men might be seen as a similar opportunity to raise the bar in women's pool. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Popcorn
12-22-2002, 05:24 PM
The numbers speak for themselves. In all the years of women's pool, only a small handful have even approached the play of an average male pro and none have ever come close to the top male players. I don't pretend to be able to explain it, it just is. I have played with many of the top women players over the years practicing, including Eva when she was winning. When you play with someone you get a sense of their speed. I have to say, most were not much. One may emerge someday to play on par with a top male player, but she would be a freak player and not representative of the majority of women players.

12-22-2002, 06:08 PM
Well, I believe otherwise and expect women to achieve parity with men, perhaps even in my lifetime. Time will tell who is right.

Steve

12-22-2002, 06:17 PM
I suspect it will be a generational thing. Each generation will improve relative to the preceding generation until some sort of physical limit is reached.

Besides talent, perhaps, it may be that Corr and Fisher’s greatest advantage over their competitors is the training they received as snooker players. As most of us know, it is much easier to learn how to do things well initially than to unlearn entrenched bad habits and replace them with good ones. Snooker technique is certainly one way to get it done right. I suspect that as more women pick up the sport at a younger age and, hopefully, find teachers who can put them on the right path we will see women’s pool improve greatly.

Steve

Perk
12-23-2002, 07:07 AM
Anyone wonder why its Corr/Fisher all the time in finals? Not to take anything away from them, but 2 BYES??? The WPBA seeded format allows for them to receive 2 byes at times. Granted, they earned it, but if they had 1 - 2 extra matches each tourney, I would be willing to bet that other women would become more prominent.

As far as the women vs men? I have a friend that would play ALL except for the top 7 or so without having to give them a spot. For me, I have only played one WPBA pro, and she is consistently in top 25. She is only better than me because she is more consistent and plays ALL the time. I would play her even (9ball), and come out even. I am only a B+/A player, so I can imagine what top level "A" players would do to the women.

9 Ball Girl
12-23-2002, 09:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Perk:</font><hr> As far as the women vs men? I have a friend that would play ALL except for the top 7 or so without having to give them a spot.<hr /></blockquote>

Although she's no longer in the Pro circuit, I still think my bud Jean Balukas can take 'em all! Even up!

Fred Agnir
12-23-2002, 10:03 AM
[quote=landshark1002000
Snooker's smaller balls and smaller pockets demand even greater accuracy from its players than nine ball. The open bridge and lowered head of snooker allows for better visual control, imo. The greater demands of their tradition plus its technical difference go far toward explaining why Corr and Fischer are the leaders of women's nine ball today.<hr /></blockquote>
This is a misleading and I have tapes to prove it. The reason why they dominate is because of their ability *and* their approach to excel. Take a look at Julie Kelly. Yes Julie has won the World Championship, but what else has she done? Nothing, right?

Do you know what Karen Corr has done to become the best? She has spent countless of hours learning to play pool the right way with the Fuscos. That' right. The reason why she's the best Women's 9-ball player is because she learned to play pool. She has honed her game playing the Joss Tour. Before she did this, her World Snooker Championship credentials got her nowhere in the WPBA, or did we all conveniently forget that?


Fred

Popcorn
12-23-2002, 01:38 PM
Although we will never know, I am not so sure Jean could beat the few top players playing now. Playing 9-ball they have an amazing consistency at methodically running out. I think Jean may have had the greatest potential of any woman player to date. But at what was her best, I think she would not win against Fisher. She had more in her that we unfortunately, never got a chance to see. That was her choice though, so we will always just have to speculate.

9 Ball Girl
12-23-2002, 01:43 PM
You're probably right but when I see Jean play once a month in her tourneys without even warming up and not playing at all the days before her tourneys, I'm sure she can give 'em a run for their money. But, we'll just have to speculate. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Fred Agnir
12-23-2002, 02:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> Although we will never know, I am not so sure Jean could beat the few top players playing now. Playing 9-ball they have an amazing consistency at methodically running out. I think Jean may have had the greatest potential of any woman player to date. <hr /></blockquote>

In case you didn't know:

http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&amp;selm=an_382192345

At a time when Buddy Hall, Wade Crane, Lebron, and Mizerak were still the upper echelon.


[ QUOTE ]
But at what was her best, I think she would not win against Fisher. <hr /></blockquote>

And here's what Robin has to say:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35DAE3B8.28A7%40popd.ix.netcom.com&amp;oe= UTF-8&amp;output=gplain

and to my specific question what she thought about yesterday's Jean vs. today's (1998) Allison:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;selm=35DB383C.263F%40popd.ix.netcom.com

Fred

Fred Agnir
12-23-2002, 02:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote StephenZ:</font><hr>
if you know of any reason which will keep women from improving till they reach parity with the men, share it please. <hr /></blockquote>
This question has been asked to death. Anytime someone answers a legitimate thought, it gets too thick in here. The answer is we won't ever know. Even if a thousand years go by and the women still haven't caught up with the men, we still won't know. There are probably several reasons why there's a disparity in the average skillset, but in the end, it's all speculation, regardless of hypothesis.

I often retort on this question, but the result is that the questions, answers and responses only hurts the value of the great strides the women have made in our sport. I'm not about to do that again.

If you insist on reading something, I offer the following, but will not respond here. It's simply food for thought, and nothing else at this point.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4189036890d&amp;dq=&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;selm=fFbM6.4879%24Az.541023%40newsread2.prod.itd .earthlink.net

and

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=372da70e.4647040%40news.earthlink.net&amp; oe=UTF-8&amp;output=gplain

or

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl904577170d&amp;dq=&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;selm=320BF34D.3FF3%40infinet.com

and a little of:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1900682594d&amp;dq=&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;selm=shepard-0608961556150001%40macrls.tcg.anl.gov

oh yeah, and for a little bit of comic relief with some reality mixed in:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vJ9O6.5695%249D5.582366%40newsread2.pr od.itd.earthlink.net&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;output=gplain

Fred

silverbullet
12-23-2002, 02:59 PM
I do not think that there is any question about the top men pros being better than the top women pros. Physically, i do not see an advantage. Men can break harder, but I see that a medium speed break can bust all the balls apart, potting one or two, if the technique is good.

There are some psychological differences between men and women's brains, however, I think that this has been tossed around quite a bit between scientists and psychologists and nobody really knows why men tend to excell in certain areas.

Once more women are in the field, more will be revealed.

blu

Sid_Vicious
12-23-2002, 03:04 PM
"Do you know what Karen Corr has done to become the best?"

Fred...Something else that I hear that Karen does, is to jump right into thick competition with the men. My serious belief is that the women will only match men after playing against men, head-to-head. You learn by playing the better players, Corr already figured that out...sid

Popcorn
12-23-2002, 03:14 PM
I played in a few of the tournaments where Jean entered and I would have to say, It is one of those deals where you had to have been there. At times the atmosphere was very difficult for some of the men players and Jean played more then a few that played like dead men. Do you think anyone really walked away thinking Keith had no chance to win? A writer can spin something where if you were there, you wonder if we are discussing the same events.

Sid_Vicious
12-23-2002, 03:14 PM
I'm with you on the power breaks. The women hit the one ball pretty darn solid with a medium(CONTROLLED) break and make something the highest percentage of the time(IMO.) All this talk about the men having a major advantage with their monster breaks does not impress me. How many times do you see whitie hopped off the table or scratched or in miserable shape, when the breaker hammers like a big dog? Many, in comparison with the opposite approach. The time will come that the theory of killing the pack with sheer, determined power will be seen as much of a bad thing as a good thing...sid~~~breaks and does not lunge

12-23-2002, 03:55 PM
I see the greater question this way: Do women have the keen eyesight, hand-eye coordination, the ability to address and execute a shot and reasoning capacity to excel at pool? The answer is yes for each part of this question. Anyone who doubts this can observe evidence supporting this claim on ESPN tonight!

The real issue is whether women will adopt the sport in greater numbers and actually work hard at it if they do. If the number of women playing the game increases, it is to be expected that the number of quality women players will increase — unless, of course, there are inherent physical barriers they will never be able to overcome. You recognize this point when you wrote:

‘One of the genders is going to have an inherent advantage physically, for whatever reason. It seems that the men do, but that’s only based on today’s observation of male and female players. Take away all social issues, and possibly one day someone will discover that it’s the women who have the physical advantage.’

While I cannot agree with your claim that one gender or another will have an inherent physical advantage when it comes to pool, I do know that the physical demands of pool playing are not such that they automatically give men an advantage. Here’s a thought experiment:

Let’s take Buddy Hall and any player whatsoever in the WNBA and match them up in a foot race, agility test, endurance test, etc. Who do you think will win these ‘contests’? Next, match them at a pool table. (I assume Hall survives his ordeal and is not in the hospital!) Who will win this ‘contest’?

The crucial questions: Who will have proven themselves to be the better athlete as based on these tests? Is the better athlete the same person as the better pool player?

Steve

Fred Agnir
12-24-2002, 07:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote StephenZ:</font><hr>
The crucial questions: Who will have proven themselves to be the better athlete as based on these tests? Is the better athlete the same person as the better pool player?<hr /></blockquote>
Change the sport from pool to anything else that is more obviously athletic to you. Then you'll have your answer. Take an Olympic swimmer vs. a WNBA player. Or a long distance runner vs. a sprinter. One's athleticism can be geared towards one area, but completely inappropriate for another athletic area.

Physical aspects do not need to be about fastest or strongest. Coordination, muscle memory, rhythm, etc. are also part of what one would consider "physical attributes." If you don't agree that pool is more physical than people care to admit, then there's no need to further discuss since that will always be my main point of contention.


Fred &lt;~~~ okay, now I really won't respond

silverbullet
12-24-2002, 09:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote StephenZ:</font><hr>
The crucial questions: Who will have proven themselves to be the better athlete as based on these tests? Is the better athlete the same person as the better pool player?<hr /></blockquote>
Change the sport from pool to anything else that is more obviously athletic to you. Then you'll have your answer. Take an Olympic swimmer vs. a WNBA player. Or a long distance runner vs. a sprinter. One's athleticism can be geared towards one area, but completely inappropriate for another athletic area.

Physical aspects do not need to be about fastest or strongest. Coordination, muscle memory, rhythm, etc. are also part of what one would consider "physical attributes." If you don't agree that pool is more physical than people care to admit, then there's no need to further discuss since that will always be my main point of contention.


Fred &lt;~~~ okay, now I really won't respond <hr /></blockquote>

I do think that pool requires many physical skills. I do think the argument is about what is now and what may be. EvenAs an sl2, I have cut the ball into the pocket at 90% a fair percentage of the time. Granted, this has not come up enuff in matches to significantly influence the outcome, but I do think It requires eye-hand coordination. I have heard women come on here and talk about successfully jumping and potting a ball. I know that this certainly requires eye hand coordination, so do massees,kicks, banks and a number of other skills I haven't learned yet, but see more advanced women players do.

Muscle memory, rhythm, I do not see either of these to favor a sex of people.

I do see that right now there are more advanced men players than women. There are some psychological things that I see going on. The women have good technique but are more cautious. The men are more aggressive and more prone to take chances on difficult shots, imo. When you put psychological differences with current skill levels, imo, the future of men vs women looks wider than it might be.

Well that is about all I have observed, but to say that women will never be as good as the men at pool seems to be missing the boat, for lack of better words.

a learner of the game who sometimes slips and plays psychology /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

12-24-2002, 10:42 AM
Nevertheless, you missed my points by many miles. One important point is that the characteristics of pool are such that they enable women to excel to the same degree as men do. Thus, as more women play the sport and take it seriously, the greater the chance that this level of activity will produce excellent women pool players. If there are no physical barriers which hinder women in their development as pool players, just opportunity, then it follows that as their opportunities increase, so will the number of excellent women pool players. Another point is that pure athleticism does not differentiate the genders across every activity. Thus, one must look at the skills required to perform a specific activity or set of activities — like shooting pool.

You are right to imply that we have nothing to discuss. This lack has little to do with my arguments on this topic, what I can or cannot accept as true or those obvious points you are trying to make that somehow lie beyond my ability to read and comprehend. It is because those like you who wish to defend the claim that women as a whole cannot and will never develop as pool players to the point that they reach parity with the men have nothing significant to say on the subject. You are right to suggest that “Coordination, muscle memory, rhythm, etc. are also part of what one would consider ‘physical attributes’” that make a pool player. What you and others have failed to demonstrate is why men are intrinsically superior to women when compared according to these qualities. You are begging the question. You and others assume the truth of your conclusion — namely, men will always be superior pool players when compared with women — and proceed from there. When the defenders of the faith can show that it will always be the case that men are superior to women in the qualities that make up an excellent pool player, then the faithful can expect reasonable people to agree with their claims.

Steve

Fred Agnir
12-24-2002, 11:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote StephenZ:</font><hr> You and others assume the truth of your conclusion — namely, men will always be superior pool players when compared with women — and proceed from there. <hr /></blockquote>
This is why I said I didn't want to engage. You're making up an argument that I didn't have most likely because you already had this statement ready to fire off at any hint. Here's what I *did* say:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred:</font><hr>Secondly and often overlooked on purpose or by accident is that pool is very
much a physical endeavor. In as much as we do not compare the athleticism
in Sumo wrestling vs. the athleticism in ball room dancing, it would be a
mistake to make the physical attributes necessary in pool analogous with
those in other sports. The simple acknowledgement of the necessary physical
skills is enough. One of the genders is going to have an inherent advantage
physically, for whatever reason. It seems that the men do, but that's only
based on today's observation of male and female players. Take away all
social issues, and possibly one day someone will discover that it's the
women who have the physical advantage.<hr /></blockquote>


The reason why we have nothing further to discuss is because I believe in the importance of the physicality of the game, and you don't see it that way. You're entire conclusion is based on the idea that there is no physical reason why either gender would have an advantage, and that "One important point is that the characteristics of pool are such that they enable women to excel to the same degree as men do." Therefore, any further discussion we might have on the physical differences and the advantage either gender may have would never come in to play. I don't even buy for one moment the characteristics of pool are such that enable every man to excel to the same degree as other men. If that were true, then we'd see it. But we don't. How wonderful it is for you to not want to even examine such an overly-used misconception. How do you go on assuming your side of the argument by quickly dismissing and not even looking at the physical argument?

You want me to point to social issues and inherent aggressiveness? Why? Everyone else that would rather not think about the physical side of this game already has a lock on that canned reply.

The reality is that this game is physical. People haven't poured their soul into perfecting their execution just to have someone like you diminish the idea. Ridiculous. So, what's the answer? Part of it is that men and women are physically different. In order for any woman to get the most out of her physical game, IMO, she has to optimize the inherent physical properties of women. Usually, that means that there has to be a role model that's not a man, and that the emulation (both physical and mental) of that role model has to be backed by numbers of women involved in the sport and many years of that involvement such that the average skillset of women increases. That's the normal evolution of every sport ever invented. I point to women's volleyball where their overall skill set in passing is simply better than the men's game. Where the men have put their effort into strength (their strength), the women have put their effort into precision. Something similar needs to happen in pool. Then we'll know. The Allisons, Karens, and Jeanettes are the *beginning* of this. Maybe in 15 years or so, we'll see if that margin closes. I'm sure it will.

Until that happens, people are just guessing and being a bit too PC by restricting the conversation to social and mental aspects. Grow a pair and evaluate the physical aspects for what they are, without assuming that I am or anyone is proclaiming superiority to either gender.

As I said, in the end, if we could get rid of all the social issues, we may find that women are physically inherent to be better at this game then men. I've certainly heard good arguments either way. But first, sir, we would have to agree on the physical importance of this game. If you don't agree to that, then as I said, we have nothing else to discuss. Is that so hard to understand? Why would we discuss disagreements beyond our original premise which are diametrically opposed?

Fred

12-24-2002, 12:27 PM
Ah, I never claimed that the physical nature of the game is irrelevant. I claimed that it potentially permits parity between men and women.

Steve

Tom_In_Cincy
12-24-2002, 01:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To put the matter differently, if you know of any reason which will keep women from improving till they reach parity with the men, share it please. Even the break is not a crucial difference in this regard. As important as the break is in 9-ball, Corry Deuel and Mika Immonen have shown that a soft break can be as effective, if not more so, as a hard break.<hr /></blockquote>

Reasons that women won't make it to the MEN's level.


1. apathy.. The WPA won't allow it members to play in the men's tournaments. It may not be a written bylaw.. but its not condoned. How can the women compete with the men if its against the WPA rules.. ?

2. Time. Big factor here.. in 25 years, pool as we know it now may not be the same. It might be better, it might be worse. There is aways a possiblility that pool's current level of entertainment will be worse off in 2027. Maybe even none exisistent. Women are only a small percentage of the pool playing population now.. if the game declines, women may be the first to get out altogether.

3. Numbers.. If you were to rate the top 100 pool players in the world..RIGHT now.. how many are women? 25 years ago, how many women? 25 year from now.. how many women? I am sure the numbers will change.. but could they be 50% or higher.. in 25 years? not unless something drastic happens.. and I wonder what that could be?

4. I've always disliked this type of men/women discussions. Its unfair to the game. The game doesn't care if you are a man/women/eskimo or a CCB member.... the game is there for anyone to play. ANYONE. Arguments/opinion shareing are nothing more than what they are.. just words. No one is more correct than anyone else.

5. Just a guess... but in 2057, we will all be long gone.. and this damn question will still be asked... and the top 100 pool players in the world will be more men than women.

12-24-2002, 02:11 PM
I’ll let your ‘thoughts’ on this subject stand as such since they add nothing substantial to the discussion. However, I do wish to recall something your previously wrote on this topic (made on 4/28/02):

‘I saw Allison and Grady play their Challange matches twice. Here is a website for the results. http://www.billiardsdigest.com/mainevent/grudgematch/ I know this is an exihibition match and it wasn't true PRO tournament conditions.
But each time I saw these matches, Grady was far superior in the approach to the game than Ms. Fisher. Ms. Fisher is a fantastic shot maker and played extremely well and kept all the matches close.
But Grady is 60 years old... and isn't even rated in the top 50 pros.’

This is a bit different than what you intended to say when you wrote: ‘I've always disliked this type of men/women discussions. Its unfair to the game.’

I guess you changed your mind since April. Would you mind sharing with us why you made this change? While your at it, why are you participating in this discussion? Perhaps you felt a need to say for all to hear:

‘Just a guess... but in 2057, we will all be long gone.. and this damn question will still be asked... and the top 100 pool players in the world will be more men than women.’

Steve

Tom_In_Cincy
12-24-2002, 05:14 PM
StephenZ

I haven't changed my mind about anything. What exactly do you think has changed? If it has changed, I would love to share if there was some reason you think is necessary.

Women have a long way to go to be at or more than 50% of the top world pool players. If you think this can happen in our life time, I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion.

This men/women discussion has been going on for the last 10 years (even earlier if you consider the late 70s and 80s). To me, its getting 'tired'. No one has submitted any quantifiable information that would be considered definite PROOF that men are superior to women at the game of pool or that women can't perform at the same skill level as the men.

Everything else is just opinions.. and we all like to voice them..

TomBrooklyn
12-25-2002, 12:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote StephenZ:</font><hr>Even the break is not a crucial difference in this regard. As important as the break is in 9-ball, Corry Deuel and Mika Immonen have shown that a soft break can be as effective, if not more so, as a hard break.<hr /></blockquote>And hard breaks or very hard hits are rarely required in straight pool or one-pocket.

DEADSTOKE32
12-25-2002, 01:54 PM
So y can't thay play together .In events like the usopen masters .upa all the other tours out there.Some women players are better then some men do.And look better.
Who would you like 2 see bent over a table runnig racks Lee or EARL? Now make the choice.. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

#### leonard
12-25-2002, 02:25 PM
If my memory serves me when Jean was playing in the mens straight pool tourneys the TV stations were all over the place with cameras videoing her every move and game. The men being the brilliant thinkers they are decided we don't want TV cameras around so we will bar her from playing. Sure enuff the TV cameras stopped coming. Instead of riding her coatails they sank themselves. ####

12-25-2002, 03:00 PM
Stephen,

Your defense of women in this argument is bordering on fanatical, as is evidenced by your personal attack on Tom_in_Cincy's post.

Tom's current post is just barely in contrast to his previous one. I'm not even sure they are relating to exactly the same subject. But the fact that you went around searching for anything he has written in the past to maybe contradict a current attitude is very, very strange.

If you have never written two slightly contradictory sentences, then that is merely evidence of the absolutely static life you must lead. Someone who hasn't changed an opinion on anything in years strikes me as very stubborn. To demand an explanation as to the change in Tom's opinion (if there even is one) is making you look very petty. If a political candidate changes his thinking on abortion, that's one thing. Asking a forum member how he dares to change an opinion on pool is, well, madness.

I hope you don't think I'm being rude, but Fred (and others) made some good points, and you are going out of your way to not acknowledge them.

12-25-2002, 03:53 PM
Hate for my first post here to sound horribly sexist, but here it is anyway! I often get aggravated watching the women play on ESPN2, as some of their position shots are poorly conceived. They don't work whitey around the table in the same manner as the men. Balukas is the only woman player I've ever watched (on TV only for me, unfortunately) that played the cue ball the way a male pro would. I'm a strong recreational player only, and when a top female pro plays position in a manner I immediately recognize as wrong, that demonstrates a gap in the knowledge or experience department. I REALLY don't intend this to be demeaning! I don't see any reason the women can't eventually play as well as the men. Delicacy of stroke and creativity can be just as important as power on the pool table, even in 9 ball. I think the level of competition and the sheer number of men players give a much bigger pool of potential than the women have to pick from. I think Balukas proved the point that a woman could compete with the top men, but I don't think any of the current women could compete successfully with the current men pros. I also find it interesting that we men are the ones debating this topic!

Ken
12-25-2002, 07:50 PM
What makes you say they can't play together? Mccready bet $9,000 that Balukas would not get to 5 in a race to 9. When McCready first got out of his chair to shoot she already had 6 and beat HIM 9-4. In the same tournament she beat Buddy Hall 11-9. Both of those men were in their prime and Hall is a 2 time winner of the U.S. Open Nine Ball. How good does a woman have to be to prove she can play with the men?

Fisher took 2 sets from Tommy Kennedy to win one of his tournaments. He may not have a top ranking but that is because he doesn't travel all around the world to play in a lot of open events. He is a U.S. Open winner. Who else does she have to beat to prove she can play with the men?

Karen Corr has beaten Immonen, a World Champion. She has beaten Zuglan who could have a top ranking if he wanted to travel to all the open events. She came close to beating McCready but made a long scratch on a sure runout. When she scooped up the balls to conceed the game McCready insisted that she give him the next game also. That is the only time I've seen anyone enforce the rule against conceeding a game and Karen clearly didn't expect that from him. Afterwards McCready said it was a good thing that she gave him the 2 games or she might have beaten him. It looks like he has learned his lesson on how good a women can be.

Rodney Morris has a worse record on the Joss tour than Corr has. I don't see anyone asking when Rodney will be able to play with the men.

If you're waiting for the women to dominate the men you have a long wait. If you're waiting for the women to be able to play with the men you're late.
KenCT

silverbullet
12-25-2002, 08:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote thebanker:</font><hr> Hate for my first post here to sound horribly sexist, but here it is anyway! I often get aggravated watching the women play on ESPN2, as some of their position shots are poorly conceived. They don't work whitey around the table in the same manner as the men. Balukas is the only woman player I've ever watched (on TV only for me, unfortunately) that played the cue ball the way a male pro would. I'm a strong recreational player only, and when a top female pro plays position in a manner I immediately recognize as wrong, that demonstrates a gap in the knowledge or experience department. I REALLY don't intend this to be demeaning! I don't see any reason the women can't eventually play as well as the men. Delicacy of stroke and creativity can be just as important as power on the pool table, even in 9 ball. I think the level of competition and the sheer number of men players give a much bigger pool of potential than the women have to pick from. I think Balukas proved the point that a woman could compete with the top men, but I don't think any of the current women could compete successfully with the current men pros. I also find it interesting that we men are the ones debating this topic! <hr /></blockquote>\]

I put in my .02 a couple of times. I just am not offended by the opinions here. It is a matter of what is and what can be in terms of women's abilities. Some are more visionary and look at what can be. Some depend more on facts and make predictions based on data that has already been demonstrated. There is nothing to take personal. I am just seeing opinions born of different kinds of minds and how those minds interpret and predict future events.

bw

Popcorn
12-25-2002, 09:11 PM
With fear of repeating myself, those records are common to any player who plays on most tours. I have beaten most of the top players in tournament matches at one time or another but would not pretend to be a player of their caliber. That is just the nature of tournaments. Pointing out that one of the women beat a Buddy Hall, or one of the other top players just has novelty interest because they are women. The top players get beat all the time by less then champion players. Now if one of these women beat one of the guys for the cash, in a two or three match, I would find that of interest.

12-25-2002, 10:01 PM
Great post, Popcorn. When I used to play tournaments, I beat most of the top area players at one time or another, but that didn't make me one of them! That's the nature of pool, especially nine ball. Don't get me wrong. I have great respect for the ladies, especially Balukas, and Corr and Fisher shoot as straight as just about any man. But I just got through watching a match I had taped of Immonen and Strickland, then I watched a taped match of Corr and Thornfeldt. No comparison when it comes to level of play. Perhaps increased competition will lead to a higher level of play in the next decade. The same thing happened in women's tennis in the early 80's when Navratilova dominated. She forced the others to improve. If you watch Venus Williams play Jennifer Capriati now, and then watch an old match between Evert and Austin, you can see how far they've come. I hope the same happens in pool. Bring Jean Balukas back!!!

thepoolnerd
12-26-2002, 09:15 AM
I'm suprised that nobody has not mentioned 14.1 or one pocket, (or 3 cushion) in this thread. Funny how someone says pool and 9 ball comes to mind. These games are definitiely harder games to learn than nine ball and it's hard to argue that men have a bigger advantage in these games. I've never seen a woman playing 1 pocket or 14.1 for that matter. I do believe they can play as well, but they don't because fewer throw themselves into the game like men do. I can see a woman winning a men's 9 ball event long, long before a mens 14.1 or one pocket event.

Doomsday Machine
12-26-2002, 06:00 PM
In a long race the top women players would have NO CHANCE against any of the top 100 male players. The only way they would ever win a set would be maybe a race to 7. Although I enjoy watching the top women play they just don't have the depth of knowledge that a hardened male pro player has. At this extreme high level of play a ball spot also really doesn't help matters much as the male players will control the game.

Doomsday Machine
12-26-2002, 06:08 PM
I have witnessed several top women's tournaments in person the last 2 years and after the top 5-6 female players the quality really drops off. I would probably be ranked somewhere around # 2,500 for male players in the U.S. and I could beat all but a handful of the top professional women players, and on a good day I could beat them all !! Even on my best day I would have ZERO chance in a race to 11 against Efren, Varner, Souquet, Strickland, etc. Let's be real here !!!

12-26-2002, 06:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Doomsday Machine:</font><hr> In a long race the top women players would have NO CHANCE against any of the top 100 male players. The only way they would ever win a set would be maybe a race to 7. <hr /></blockquote>

It's important in a debate such as this to try and avoid exaggeration. I don't agree with this statement, as there is also a dropoff after the top 20 (approximately) men. The top 20 or so are capable of controlling set after set after set. After that, you're just talking about players that almost never miss. There is a huge difference.

Who would you consider to be the 100th ranked male player? I don't want to offend any of the men players, so I won't mention who I might think to be around that area. But you think of someone, and then ask yourself if you really believe your above statement.

Doomsday Machine
12-26-2002, 07:26 PM
Would probably put Marco Marquez (Chicago area) at around the 100 area in men's rankings. I have seen him play in tournaments and for the cash several times in Germany against top competition and he would obliterate any of the women players (especially if winners break). If they were using alternate breaks I still could not picture him losing a set to any of the top female players.

12-26-2002, 08:49 PM
Fair enough, Doom.

Fred Agnir
12-27-2002, 09:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote thepoolnerd:</font><hr> I'm suprised that nobody has not mentioned 14.1 or one pocket, (or 3 cushion) in this thread. <hr /></blockquote>

Someone did.


[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen a woman playing 1 pocket or 14.1 for that matter. <hr /></blockquote>

Then you missed Jeanette Lee playing in the National 14.1 tournament in Amsterdam Billards, and the women playing in the U.S.Open 14.1 also in NYC.

Gerda played a one-pocket event in the past couple of years.

Fred

snipershot
12-28-2002, 04:35 PM
women vs men

I agree with the idea that physical strength and ability isnt much of a factor in pool, and that definitely isnt the reason why there is a gender separation in pool.

I think the reason is that girls don't seem to have the same interest level as guys. The number of males playing pool greatly outnumbers the females. This is true on both the professional and the local scene, go down to your local pool hall and look at the number of guys there compared to girls. Roughly three quarters of the people are guys.

Girls have the potential to play on the same level as guys and maybe even better (just kidding!) they just don't have the same interest in the game as the guys.