This. I don't watch anything outside of games, because I'm not interested in TMZ: Sports Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Which sports, and how do you qualify it? How do you determine a male is better at gymnastics than a female? Or rowing? Fencing? Cross country skiing? Swimming? Diving? Oh, you mean "football," and like 4 other sports as "sports across the board."
I took a bit of a different direction in my post, but to me what I consider better basketball is more entertaining basketball (unless it's the Grizzlies - of course). The stuff that entertains us (or maybe just me) in athletics is watching athletic achievements that the common person can't accomplish. 360 dunk on the break. OBJ one handed grab behind the head running full speed. 450 ft home runs. You tend to see that more in male sports, because...well nature and testosterone. The UConn/Miss State game was great and entertaining, but that's an outlier in games I've seen.
Rowing is a team sport. An all male team may post a faster time than an all female team. That same team may still post the same time if they had one female. Skiing has a judgement component in some aspects. Just down hill times is the best you can measure. And then the statistical difference between two times may not be significant, even if one is faster. And if a female is faster than 99/100 other opponents, and the 1 opponent is male, making a sweeping generalization that makes are better is pretty amusing, since 99 just got smoked. Usain Bolt is a freak runner. He's probably faster than everyone on the planet. The fact that the best female isn't faster than him doesn't mean men are better at running, because that female is better than 99.99999999% of all male runners. And that's not in general, that's specific. She just isn't faster than those one or two dudes. She's still generally and specifically faster than damn near every other man on the planet.
I was assuming that you meant those were somehow less quantifiable than football and like 4 other sports.
I'm saying they are all equally bad at being quantified, but the main sports are viewed from an entertainment factor, and thus "better." We have means of quantifying them all: score, time, etc. and other than team sports, we're really talking best day vs best day, of 1 in billions of performances. Sorry, I'm not going to draw a conclusion on 1 in a billion that is 2 seconds faster than the 1 in 999,999,999
The high school men's 100m record is faster than the woman's world record. A city u15 team can beat the USWNT http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/new...-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
Football players aren't natural, in size, speed, anything. They are artificially inflated. Women also don't play. They don't play at 6 years old, and continue through adult years. They don't have massive summer camps, and scholarships. It's an impossible comparison. Even with basketball, you're looking at specifics, and talking generalities. The five best, historical basketball players, of all time, in their prime, probably play a faster game than an equal set of women and win. That's not the same as saying those same women don't wipe the floor with everyone here. It's making generations using specifics. They are still better than 99.9999% of all men. But let me turn it back on you. Football and basketball is easily quantifiable, who is without a doubt the concensus GOAT of each sport?
Yea. The high school men's record is also faster than 99.9999% of all grown men. So I guess we should say high school kids are better athletes than grown men?
