Women are better endurance athelettes than men., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:23 PM by kro32

reply to post by Thestargateisreal

Because the majority of people are agreeing that your incorrect and I like to prove people wrong whenever I can

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:24 PM by Flyer

reply to post by Carseller4

Not really, men come first in that too!

Yes this is feminist tripe. Its like saying an ant is the strongest animal on earth.
Women are physically inferior to men, thats a fact, even with the sports that women should be equal like snooker or motor racing. Men still beat them.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:39 PM by Thestargateisreal

reply to post by Flyer

Danica Patrick said Hi.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:44 PM by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
Danica Patrick said Hi.

Danica Patrick: races: 170, wins: 1.

Danica's a pretty lass, and - let's be honest - without her looks she would fade into the obscurity that every other two-bit racing driver does.

edit on 20-8-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:44 PM by kro32

In 1973 Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in three straight sets after he challenged her to a match where he boasted of his superior male attributes.

Riggs did his best to finesse the ball, hitting lobs, drop shots and spins. In one of the most talked about events in United States sports history, Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in three straight sets of tennis by wearing him down with long rallies. The scores were 6-4, 6-3, and 6-3. After the game he graciously said, "She was too good, too fast. She returned all my passing shots and made great plays off them."

www.essortment.com...

Care to revise your statement

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:44 PM by EnigmaAgent

For the moment the only sporting events I can think of that women excel over men because of their physical makeup and attribute is in

Uneven Bars
The Balance Beam

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:47 PM by Thestargateisreal

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I don't deny that it is a male dominated sport. But she does consistently finish ahead of the majority of the male field. That means she's better than every single man she's in front of (by your thinking). Racing isn't entirely a fair comparison because a lot of that comes down to the vehicle and even luck.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:47 PM by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
For the moment the only sporting events I can think of that women excel over men because of their physical makeup and attribute is in

Uneven Bars
The Balance Beam

Men don't compete in those gymnastic disciplines, just as women don't perform the rings or pommel horse.

I would be staggered if male gymnasts didn't outperform women in the uneven bars and balance beam, given the opportunity to do so.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:47 PM by Observer99

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
This extensive test proves that per their size women are indeed faster at endurance running and sprinting than men. Why all the big talk from guys about how great they are?

So to combat sexism, you make a sexist comment. And also one which demeans your own gender (endurance running means my gender is great!) Good job.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:48 PM by kro32

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
For the moment the only sporting events I can think of that women excel over men because of their physical makeup and attribute is in

Uneven Bars
The Balance Beam

This is the point that the OP is making. Women are superior to men in ability but lack the attributes that give the man the advantage. Take away those attributes and the woman wins for endurance. As another poster mentioned, an ant is far stronger than other creatures much larger but are hampered by their size. The same thing applies here, take away the advantages the man has and on equal footing the woman wins.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:50 PM by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by Flyer

Danica Patrick said Hi.

How many races has Danica won?

Face it, she was used as a sex symbol as a marketing tool...she isn't a very good driver.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:52 PM by Thestargateisreal

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Read my previous post.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:54 PM by Sherlock Holmes

Bobby Riggs was a chain-smoking 50+year-old guy when he took on top women's player Billie Jean King.

You only need to look at the mediocre Aussie, Karsten Braasch, and his pwnage of the Williams sisters, in 1998, to see just how terrible female tennis players are.

I'm nothing more than an adequate amateur tennis player, yet I would comfortably defeat any one of the ''top'' ladies professional players.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:57 PM by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
For the moment the only sporting events I can think of that women excel over men because of their physical makeup and attribute is in

Uneven Bars
The Balance Beam

This is the point that the OP is making. Women are superior to men in ability but lack the attributes that give the man the advantage. Take away those attributes and the woman wins for endurance. As another poster mentioned, an ant is far stronger than other creatures much larger but are hampered by their size. The same thing applies here, take away the advantages the man has and on equal footing the woman wins.

Both you and the OP are a bit off.

Both of the studies you and the OP use handicap the man...and then say "look...women did better". Of course they will do better if you put men at a disadvantage.

For your endurance study, they use 75% of the weight they max out at....so a stronger person is always going to be at a handicap because they are going to max out proportionally larger than a weaker person. And then they will be doing reps at a higher weight. I don't care how strong you are, male or female, someone using a lower weight will most likely be able to do more reps.

So why handicap...why not just put them toe to toe???

It's really a silly argument that comes down to someone lacking in self-confidence.

Men are physically superior...sorry ladies.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:57 PM by Thestargateisreal

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Women have a better weight distribution. If no men enter the event ever I'd guess it's because they do not wish to lose miserably.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 03:59 PM by kro32

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Of course because your physical attributes give you an advantage. That's like saying your superior because you can beat a 10 yr.old in a match. Stick a womans body on you and you will sink to the bottom of the pack.

Women are only behind men in endurance event's like marathons by a few seconds and given the advantages men have physically they should be far further ahead than that. The fact that women beat men at various things now when they should lose everytime is proof alone that they have better endurance than men.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 04:02 PM by kro32

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Because toe to toe gives the man an unfair advantage and you have to handicap it to achieve a balanced result. You bring up the fact that men are better but won't acknowledge they have advantages over women because once you take those away the science shows women are superior.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 04:03 PM by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Of course because your physical attributes give you an advantage. That's like saying your superior because you can beat a 10 yr.old in a match. Stick a womans body on you and you will sink to the bottom of the pack.

Women are only behind men in endurance event's like marathons by a few seconds and given the advantages men have physically they should be far further ahead than that. The fact that women beat men at various things now when they should lose everytime is proof alone that they have better endurance than men.

Your arguments are not making any sense...lol, I'm dying laughing.

Here is what I am hearing "Men are only better athletes because they are physically superior"...LOL.

In other words..."Men are only better athletes because they are better athletes".

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 04:05 PM by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Because toe to toe gives the man an unfair advantage and you have to handicap it to achieve a balanced result. You bring up the fact that men are better but won't acknowledge they have advantages over women because once you take those away the science shows women are superior.

It's not an "unfair advantage"...it is simply an advantage.

if you take away the mens "unfair advantage", then by comparison the women gain an advantage...don't you have to then handicap the women's "unfair advantage".

You are going in circles man.

reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 04:11 PM by Thestargateisreal

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

That's because biologically speaking men build large muscle easily, women build efficient muscle, and not very easily. Large and efficient muscles are the holy grail of male strong man athletics and it's something that they train for specicically but still can't beat a woman on. Proportionally speaking of corse.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^