Bravest athlete ever? I think not.
Discussion
irocfan said:
E63eeeeee... said:
fatbutt said:
In honour of true equality just get rid of all gender based sports. Tennis is just tennis, not mens or womens. Football, rugby, MMA... all equal.
Also no weight categories in boxing, no age group sports, no juniors, no masters. Just let them all get on with it. What other arbitrary rules can we get rid of? Ferruccio Fan said:
Apart from motorsports and all horse based sports , what sports do all genders compete together ?
Can't think of any .
Do women compete with men in darts ?.....that very active sport of beer likers .
I'm pretty sure they let women play darts these days. Curling possibly, think I've seen mixed teams in that. I believe ultra-running gets pretty close in the longer events. Can't think of any .
Do women compete with men in darts ?.....that very active sport of beer likers .
E63eeeeee... said:
Ferruccio Fan said:
Apart from motorsports and all horse based sports , what sports do all genders compete together ?
Can't think of any .
Do women compete with men in darts ?.....that very active sport of beer likers .
I'm pretty sure they let women play darts these days. Curling possibly, think I've seen mixed teams in that. I believe ultra-running gets pretty close in the longer events. Can't think of any .
Do women compete with men in darts ?.....that very active sport of beer likers .
has apparently been scrapped as the mixed teams were optional and so all male teams dominated and there is 1 sailing event with
male and female competing called Nacre . not familiar with that .
E63eeeeee... said:
Also no weight categories in boxing, no age group sports, no juniors, no masters. Just let them all get on with it. What other arbitrary rules can we get rid of?
You make a lot of good points, but I’m not sure I agree with your application of the word arbitrary. In fact, perhaps excluding masters, I don’t think any of these are arbitrary?Collins:
ADJECTIVE
If you describe an action, rule, or decision as arbitrary, you think that it is not based on any principle, plan, or system. It often seems unfair because of this.
oddball1313 said:
Not even close - What Fiorenzo Magni went through is unimaginable
https://www.velonews.com/news/from-the-pages-of-ve...
He’s nails. https://www.velonews.com/news/from-the-pages-of-ve...
PasttenseofFall said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Also no weight categories in boxing, no age group sports, no juniors, no masters. Just let them all get on with it. What other arbitrary rules can we get rid of?
You make a lot of good points, but I’m not sure I agree with your application of the word arbitrary. In fact, perhaps excluding masters, I don’t think any of these are arbitrary?Collins:
ADJECTIVE
If you describe an action, rule, or decision as arbitrary, you think that it is not based on any principle, plan, or system. It often seems unfair because of this.
E63eeeeee... said:
Fair enough. I'd argue that there's no underlying principle that determines the weight or age categories, which is why they seem arbitrary to me, but you can certainly argue there's kind of a system being applied. I'm not sure that system itself isn't arbitrary but that seems like something of a rabbit hole.
I'm really not convinced the systems are arbitrary. By and large they seem rational, albeit with some exceptions?Boxing: ceteris paribus, greater height = greater mass, and greater arm reach (ape index). Assuming same body composition, enhanced muscle mass likely leads to enhanced power. Height as a metric would be more arbitrary; one can changes their mass but not their height. Mike Tyson vs Joe Calzage, two boxing legends, very similar height, very different mass and power.
Age groups: puberty, and cumulative training time vs someone who's reached / exceeded their 10,000 hours (or whatever arbitrary time limit Gladwell & co. choose). It has it's flaws, but is largely workable and see no other better solution?
Juniors: same as age groups.
There are exceptions which do look arbitrary, or at least ill considered:
1) Masters, feels highly arbitrary. Probably as people get wealthier they have more £ to put back into sport, so it makes good business to keep them engaged? God knows. Perhaps it's so people still have a field to compete in when they get older? Anyway, the 'starting' age certainly appears arbitrary.
2) Weight lifters & power lifters being categorised by mass and not height. Work done = force * distance moved. If you assume that force is proportionate to mass, and categorise from that, you can reasonably assert that height is just as valid a criterion? Ideally it would be a matrix of height and mass, but I think the sport is a little undersubscribed for that. It looks like an arbitrary system that works. Just as high jump favours the tall, weightlifting favours the short.
3) Rugby and age group. It assumes equal puberty progression and physical sizes. When I lived in NZ, their age group rugby was also subject to weight limits. This worked because a lot of the Maori/Polynesian boys were like grown men at 12, so could play 'up' a group. The flexibility within this seemed well considered, and appeared to overcome the shortfallings of the age group system.
PasttenseofFall said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Fair enough. I'd argue that there's no underlying principle that determines the weight or age categories, which is why they seem arbitrary to me, but you can certainly argue there's kind of a system being applied. I'm not sure that system itself isn't arbitrary but that seems like something of a rabbit hole.
I'm really not convinced the systems are arbitrary. By and large they seem rational, albeit with some exceptions?Boxing: ceteris paribus, greater height = greater mass, and greater arm reach (ape index). Assuming same body composition, enhanced muscle mass likely leads to enhanced power. Height as a metric would be more arbitrary; one can changes their mass but not their height. Mike Tyson vs Joe Calzage, two boxing legends, very similar height, very different mass and power.
Age groups: puberty, and cumulative training time vs someone who's reached / exceeded their 10,000 hours (or whatever arbitrary time limit Gladwell & co. choose). It has it's flaws, but is largely workable and see no other better solution?
Juniors: same as age groups.
There are exceptions which do look arbitrary, or at least ill considered:
1) Masters, feels highly arbitrary. Probably as people get wealthier they have more £ to put back into sport, so it makes good business to keep them engaged? God knows. Perhaps it's so people still have a field to compete in when they get older? Anyway, the 'starting' age certainly appears arbitrary.
2) Weight lifters & power lifters being categorised by mass and not height. Work done = force * distance moved. If you assume that force is proportionate to mass, and categorise from that, you can reasonably assert that height is just as valid a criterion? Ideally it would be a matrix of height and mass, but I think the sport is a little undersubscribed for that. It looks like an arbitrary system that works. Just as high jump favours the tall, weightlifting favours the short.
3) Rugby and age group. It assumes equal puberty progression and physical sizes. When I lived in NZ, their age group rugby was also subject to weight limits. This worked because a lot of the Maori/Polynesian boys were like grown men at 12, so could play 'up' a group. The flexibility within this seemed well considered, and appeared to overcome the shortfallings of the age group system.
E63eeeeee... said:
All fair points. I was thinking less about the objectives of the classifications than the lack of justification for the actual boundaries, and you've mentioned quite a few of the reasons why they don't always achieve what they set out to.
Fairness, safety, progression, spectacle to name a few justifications?Yes, ultra running, women have won overall eg Spine Race(270 miles, Pennine Way) because once you get to big distances it's about endurance not speed.
I heard an interview on the radio a few years ago, can't remember who it was, but the presenter asked the tennis expert what would happen if the top man played the top woman - they reckoned it would be 6-0 6-0 6-0 and the top 100 men would all beat the top woman, after that it would be possible she would win.
I heard an interview on the radio a few years ago, can't remember who it was, but the presenter asked the tennis expert what would happen if the top man played the top woman - they reckoned it would be 6-0 6-0 6-0 and the top 100 men would all beat the top woman, after that it would be possible she would win.
I know that Niki Lauda has been mentioned on this thread. Have we had any discussion on whether he was super-brave or a bit of a .......... nutter? And I say that as someone that has survived a horrible accident so I dont want to be mean about him. I really liked him but wonder if what he did went beyond brave.
Randy Winkman said:
I know that Niki Lauda has been mentioned on this thread. Have we had any discussion on whether he was super-brave or a bit of a .......... nutter? And I say that as someone that has survived a horrible accident so I dont want to be mean about him. I really liked him but wonder if what he did went beyond brave.
Where’s the line drawn? (Personally I’ve no idea).
Randy Winkman said:
I know that Niki Lauda has been mentioned on this thread. Have we had any discussion on whether he was super-brave or a bit of a .......... nutter? And I say that as someone that has survived a horrible accident so I dont want to be mean about him. I really liked him but wonder if what he did went beyond brave.
F1 drivers and bike racers are not normal, balanced people. Look what Mick Doohan went through to return, it's nuts. john2443 said:
Yes, ultra running, women have won overall eg Spine Race(270 miles, Pennine Way) because once you get to big distances it's about endurance not speed.
I heard an interview on the radio a few years ago, can't remember who it was, but the presenter asked the tennis expert what would happen if the top man played the top woman - they reckoned it would be 6-0 6-0 6-0 and the top 100 men would all beat the top woman, after that it would be possible she would win.
"1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sistersI heard an interview on the radio a few years ago, can't remember who it was, but the presenter asked the tennis expert what would happen if the top man played the top woman - they reckoned it would be 6-0 6-0 6-0 and the top 100 men would all beat the top woman, after that it would be possible she would win.
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[56] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams 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 of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. 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.[56] 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"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]"
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff