thejeff wrote:
Tennis.
That is all I can think of.
Old news, but:
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html
That you think a woman professional tennis player can beat a D1 college player shows you have no understanding of tennis.
A top professional woman tennis player absolutely CAN AND WOULD beat most division one college players. I played competitive tennis for 12 years.
King Gojira wrote:
thejeff wrote:Tennis.
That is all I can think of.
Old news, but:
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.htmlThat you think a woman professional tennis player can beat a D1 college player shows you have no understanding of tennis.
Here's one - Curling.
And to the poster who said shooting wasn't a sport.....it was in the Olympics......a few weeks ago. I believe the first U.S. gold medal was won be a female in skeet or something like that.
leisure activity wrote:
Archery, driving, golf, shooting, and sailing are not sports
Archery, golf, and shooting were sports featured in the Olympics.....just a few weeks ago. Pay attention!!
John "Decent Hiney" Rutlidge wrote:
Here's one - Curling.
.
Interesting. Evidence?
John "Decent Hiney" Rutlidge wrote:
leisure activity wrote:Archery, driving, golf, shooting, and sailing are not sports
Archery, golf, and shooting were sports featured in the Olympics.....just a few weeks ago. Pay attention!!
Why would you not include that sailing was in the Olympics?
get away wrote:
I'd say sub-elite in the marathon is like 2:14-2:20.
Above that isn't very elite at all.
Tons of regular guys I know run 2:25 just by adding miles and sticking with it. They were nothing special otherwise.
This is the interesting part. People's different ideas of what constitutes elite.
I'd say Olympic A is world class (elite), Olympic B is national class (also elite), and slower than that is sub-elite, maybe up to 2:25.
Above 2:25 isn't very elite at all, hobby jogger stuff.
I definitely fit your definition of a "regular guy" that was working a 9-5 job while trying to make trials. And maybe I'm bias, but when I could run 2:21 I called myself sub-elite. Now you're telling me my whole life I've been a hobby jogger. .
Nordic skiing. Marit Bjorgen might even challenge elite level skiers in the sprints.
For example, at last years American Birkebiener Caitlin Greg skied 2:22, 17 minutes off the men's winning time of 2:05. She placed about 50th overall. Pretty much everyone top 50 is sub elite.
2:25 marathon is not hobby jogging. 2:45 yeah. 2:30 not so much. It's not elite or even sub elite, but ca. 5:40-45 miles for 26.2? That's not jogging.
Those of you that chose tennis and golf are so laughable it's ridiculous. These sports are no different than a sport like basketball in this regard. D1 men tennis players and golfers would destroy professionals on the women's tours.
In 9th grade I was in a pick up game with an all big ten women's basketball player, I was better than she was. I was 5'7" (I'm now 6'0") and a back up on my freshmen HS basketball team, and I should add that we were a small school and suburban. In other words, I wasn't very good.
thejeff wrote:
John "Decent Hiney" Rutlidge wrote:Here's one - Curling.
.
Interesting. Evidence?
Yes.....my eyesight. Gender would have no bearing on curling.
Marathon course cutting
Chandra B0zelko and Mike Rossi and Kip Litton
All great at what they do
Sara Palin wrote:
John "Decent Hiney" Rutlidge wrote:Archery, golf, and shooting were sports featured in the Olympics.....just a few weeks ago. Pay attention!!
Why would you not include that sailing was in the Olympics?
You're right....sailing was included in Rio.
I must have missed it due to my overly full masturbatory schedule.
Now go stick a live salmon where your poo comes out.
In HS, I played basketball. I vividly remember one day a guy on the team started a discussion about whether or not we could beat the Tennessee women's team. I don't now how this one kid came up with that but when I became a hard-core track fan I realized that elite women's sport is basically the equivalent of topboys HS sports.Look at the women's 800 or 1500. Tons of boys could run 1:56/ 3:58. Not very many could run 3:50 or 29:17, but i think the analogy is a good one. I mean the Australian women's Olympic soccer team was destroyed by an U-15 boys team 7-0 before the Olympics.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.htmlIn terms of the Williams sisters, the wikipedia page on that match is amazing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)
Wiki wrote:
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[29] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams, aged 17 and 16 respectively, had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."[30][31] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[32] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two beers. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[33] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun."[34] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.
arandomwalk wrote:
A good friend of mine who played at UNC and was their 2nd best player for a couple years a while back told me himself that he'd get crushed by any of the top female tennis players.
I'd like to see more of these tennis matches. I'd be surprised if what you say is true. I mean maybe if you are talking about the very best. I guess tennis isn't as good as track in college?
Maybe the Genzebe Dibaba equivalent in tennis (Serena) could beat the #2 tennis player at UNC but certainly not your average top 100 woman's pro.
I decided to look at track. The #1 1500 runner at UNC ran 3:49 this year. The #2 runner ran 3:50. So maybe Dibaba could beat the #2 guy but not the #1. And there is no way someone like Jenny Simpson (good pro) could do it.
Here are the UNC top track times;
https://www.tfrrs.org/top_performances/NC_college_m_North_Carolina.html?list_hnd=1683&season_hnd=336#13rojo wrote:
In HS, I played basketball. I vividly remember one day a guy on the team started a discussion about whether or not we could beat the Tennessee women's team. I don't now how this one kid came up with that but when I became a hard-core track fan I realized that elite women's sport is basically the equivalent of topboys HS sports.
In grad school, a few of us were recruited to routinely scrimmage the women's basketball team. At the time the team was ranked in the top 10. We used to mop the floor with them and we were just a bunch of washed up intramural players.
Most definitely not Tennis. Anyone who thinks a woman pro could beat a sub-elite male is an idiot. Same with golf. There's a reason why even Annika Sorenstam sucked it up in her PGA tour apperance.
Rojo, yes, tennis is not as good as track in college. A good number of track athletes become top professional track athletes. This is NOT the case for tennis. VERY few division one tennis players go on to have successful professional tennis careers. Division one tennis is if a backup if you didn't become a professional. College track is very much a feeder into the pros, tennis is not. If you didn't cut it as a pro when you were 18, it is unlikely that you will make it as a pro when you are 22.
rojo wrote:
arandomwalk wrote:A good friend of mine who played at UNC and was their 2nd best player for a couple years a while back told me himself that he'd get crushed by any of the top female tennis players
I'd like to see more of these tennis matches. I'd be surprised if what you say is true. I mean maybe if you are talking about the very best. I guess tennis isn't as good as track in college?
Maybe the Genzebe Dibaba equivalent in tennis (Serena) could beat the #2 tennis player at UNC but certainly not your average top 100 woman's pro.
I decided to look at track. The #1 1500 runner at UNC ran 3:49 this year. The #2 runner ran 3:50. So maybe Dibaba could beat the #2 guy but not the #1. And there is no way someone like Jenny Simpson (good pro) could do it.
Here are the UNC top track times;
https://www.tfrrs.org/top_performances/NC_college_m_North_Carolina.html?list_hnd=1683&season_hnd=336#13
Talent for tennis is much much more gender neutral than it is for sports like basketball and track. I don't think you guys quite realize how good professional female tennis players are. They would absolutely wipe the floor with most division one male tennis players. Professional women hit the ball with similar (but slightly slower pace) than division one men but with much better placement and much better consistency. Division one tennis players still suffer a lot from unforced errors.
Here are the main categories in which to measure a tennis player.
Pace: The division one men have a decent advantage over top women in this but not as much as you might think. A lot of even top division one tennis players have fast first serves but with low percentages. In terms of ground strokes, the top 20-30 professional women hit the ball at a very similar but still definitely slower pace to division one men.
Consistency: The top pro women inarguably have an advantage here. Lack of unforced errors is a huge separating factor between professional and college tennis players. At the college level there is still a LOT of unforced errors. Professional women would have far fewer unforced errors than college men and it would probably cost them the match alone.
Placement: The pro women also would have an advantage here. Having fast serves and hard ground strokes are not all that helpful against good tennis players if they are not placed well. The top women play tennis far more hours per day than college men and just by muscle memory alone would have an advantage. Women can return 130 mph serves if it goes right to their sweet spot.
Mental toughness: Sorry but college men still have meltdowns on the court that affects their play. Not that this never happens with professionals but it is far more detrimental among college players. Tanking matches due to frustration is a huge problem among non-pro players and prevents them from improving. Elite women tennis players inarguably have better mental toughness on average compared to division one male tennis players.
Quickness on the court: College men have an advantage here obviously. Can react faster, etc. However, because college men don't have as good of placement as women in terms of groundstrokes, the agility disadvantage would not be as pronounced.
These factors combined, to me at least, provide a pretty convincing argument that the top professional women would quite easily beat almost all male division one tennis players.
Don't be such a lazy ass. Google high school wrestling girls. The girls are good in their weight classes.
thejeff wrote:
some more wrote:wrestling in weight class
gymnastics
ultra running
ultra swimming
rock climbing
I am calling BS on wrestling, at least after puberty, which the OP suggests. I would love to be proven wrong, tho... link?
Bresnick wrote:
Don't be such a lazy ass. Google high school wrestling girls. The girls are good in their weight classes.
thejeff wrote:I am calling BS on wrestling, at least after puberty, which the OP suggests. I would love to be proven wrong, tho... link?
I forgive you for name calling.
I DID google it before I posted my question, which is why I threw the "after puberty" qualifier in there. I am sure girls are good in their weight classes. Boys are better.