Are there any pro women in any pro sport that could beat the worst pro man in that sport?

BillCarr wrote:

In the equestrian events where muscles are less important (dressage) the women are equal to the men. At the 2016 Olympics women took all three medals in individual dressage.

Yea but the interesting thing is that in equestrian or horse racing, both male and female horses are a viable option. The speed difference between male and female horses is around 1%, whereas in human sports like swimming or running it's more like 11%. For greyhounds, the difference is even less, around 0.1%.

This is evolutionary. Men used to do the hunting and fighting, staying physically active, while females stayed back to cook and take care of children. The bodies evolved to be best at the tasks.

Horses didn't have that choice, they had to run whenever they encountered a predator, whether they are male or female.

I think if we wouldn't have screwed things up with evolution, and had shared tasks equally between male and female from the get-go, both could have been sprinters and distance runners of similar ability. But over million of years we developed a system where it's impossible for the females to catch up with the males.

In a one-game bowling contest, obviously a woman could win if the guy got a couple of tough spares he could not convert.

Ironman

At Kona in 2018, Daniela Ryf only got beat by 24 or the 42 pro men, In addition, she had to stop for at least one minute after the swim to get treated for jellyfish sting. She was within one minute of the guy in 22nd (Cameron Brown). She was basically a mid packer on the guy side.

So much better than the slowest pro man.

Only one amateur beat her (he was less than 2 minutes in front of her)

As We Speak wrote:

In a one-game bowling contest, obviously a woman could win if the guy got a couple of tough spares he could not convert.

Why does it have to be about his open frames?

In a one-game bowling contest a woman could drop a 300 game on his silly ass.

I'm no victim - just calling a spade a spade. Poor weak OP :`(

andsoitgoes wrote:

I'm no victim - just calling a spade a spade. Poor weak OP :`(

The most common thing someone who loses an argument does is just to attack the personality of the OP. You need to work on how you handle criticism and actually partake in the question.

Shaq wrote:

andsoitgoes wrote:

I'm no victim - just calling a spade a spade. Poor weak OP :`(

The most common thing someone who loses an argument does is just to attack the personality of the OP. You need to work on how you handle criticism and actually partake in the question.

BOOM ROASTED!!!!

Shaq wrote:

andsoitgoes wrote:

I'm no victim - just calling a spade a spade. Poor weak OP :`(

The most common thing someone who loses an argument does is just to attack the personality of the OP. You need to work on how you handle criticism and actually partake in the question.

There's no argument, so there is no ad hominem fallacy.

andsoitgoes wrote:

Shaq wrote:

The most common thing someone who loses an argument does is just to attack the personality of the OP. You need to work on how you handle criticism and actually partake in the question.

There's no argument, so there is no ad hominem fallacy.

That by definition is the most perfect way to describe exactly what you did. Thanks for that term. I will use it for every person that cant handle a debate.

BOOM ROASTED wrote:

Shaq wrote:

The most common thing someone who loses an argument does is just to attack the personality of the OP. You need to work on how you handle criticism and actually partake in the question.

BOOM ROASTED!!!!

Im not trying to roast anyone. Just annoyed that someone can take a question and put their own spin on it because they dont like the question... They could easily prove to me there are women out there like Paula Radcliff that are as good as men in a professional sport...but instead they make it personal. This wasnt to shame women, yet women take it that way. This is a huge issue in todays society

These threads are popular, but irrelvant. Maybe Serena could beat the 100th ranked player or not beat #200, but until people want to see that male player in the women's Wimbledon final it's meaningless. Men being better athletes is a fact so why even post examples?