Women have come a long way in sports but will they ever catch up ?

[garcon55]

Originally Posted by alfred123 [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

No, I mean girls-next door. Ordinary girls at the gym lift much heavier now than 10-15 years ago. I

there are ordinary girls taking steroids, unfortunately

[Elbow Escape]

Originally Posted by NewYork [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

The best is the Ronda Rousey argument. Some experts legit thought she could fight in the UFC mens division. That was so ridiculous. How many men in the UFC would need 3 rounds to beat Meisha Tate? Tate would get owned by the majority of men who train seriously in MMA at her weight class, let alone a UFC fighter. (Nunes prob would beat the majority of trained MMA fighters that are Sunday warriors)

Sadly, women beating men will always be unique.

What "experts" legit tought that?
I am far from an expert, I just know a little about BJJ, and I always knew not only that she could not compete with professional men, but that she was not anything unbeteable among women either and that her grappling style had a lot flaws.

[alfred123]

Originally Posted by garcon55 [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

there are ordinary girls taking steroids, unfortunately

You are right, but that is not the girls that I am talking about. A large majority of girls lift considerably heavier today than 10-15 years ago.
At least in my country, Norway.

[garcon55]

Originally Posted by alfred123 [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

You are right, but that is not the girls that I am talking about. A large majority of girls lift considerably heavier today than 10-15 years ago.
At least in my country, Norway.

allright, i am also coming from north of Europe and norvegian women are no average compared to world female population.

[InTheFlesh86]

Hey Garcon, who would win--Prime Ronda Rousey or prime Fedor?

Joe Rogan said she could have beaten 50% of the men's division, so I guess it's a toss up?

[del]

Originally Posted by garcon55 [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

You didn´t get it.
I compare boys and adult women here. 13 years old boys slightly outperfrom adult women.
Boys always outperform girls the same age according to their data (from 11 years old)

As usual, garcon, you overgeneralize and misinterpret. Nowhere does [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register] say or even suggest that boys always outperform girls. Neither does it say what you seem to suggest, that 13 year old boys always outperform adult women.

What it does actually say is that the average of the 100 top performing boys (out of over 1000) exceeds the average of the 100 top performing girls (out of over 1000) of the same age at the particular tests used. The text states that the performance of boys and girls is essentially the same up to age 12. It also shows that the average figures for these 13 year old boys is about equal to that of 18 year old girls (who must be standing in for adult women in your account, since there is no mention of such a comparison in the article).

As usual, you neglect the variability among both boys and girls. If this study had been interested in the question of variability, we would have seen the bell curves (or even deciles) of performance in which all boys and all girls were plotted. In that we would have seen, as all other such studies show, that the curves for males and females overlap almost entirely through age 12 and then the amount of overlap decreases every year up through age 18 but never disappears.

[garcon55]

Originally Posted by del [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

As usual, garcon, you overgeneralize and misinterpret. Nowhere does [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register] say or even suggest that boys always outperform girls. Neither does it say what you seem to suggest, that 13 year old boys always outperform adult women.

What it does actually say is that the average of the 100 top performing boys (out of over 1000) exceeds the average of the 100 top performing girls (out of over 1000) of the same age at the particular tests used. The text states that the performance of boys and girls is essentially the same up to age 12. It also shows that the average figures for these 13 year old boys is about equal to that of 18 year old girls (who must be standing in for adult women in your account, since there is no mention of such a comparison in the article).

As usual, you neglect the variability among both boys and girls. If this study had been interested in the question of variability, we would have seen the bell curves (or even deciles) of performance in which all boys and all girls were plotted. In that we would have seen, as all other such studies show, that the curves for males and females overlap almost entirely through age 12 and then the amount of overlap decreases every year up through age 18 but never disappears.

What, they are taking averages?
You mean that each data point is the average of several performances?
I thought all the boys and girls did exactly the same performance in each age.
Wow, thank you for the info...





Can you read a graph?
boys are on average outperforming girls whatever the age.
This is confirmed by an other article i cited in this thread.

[Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

"it was observed that the boys were superior to the girls on tests of aerobic capability, speed, agility, explosive strength, and maximum isometric strength. The girls were superior in flexibility of the lower backand hamstrings and balance"

[del]

Originally Posted by garcon55 [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

garcon

Of course I can read a graph and, more importantly I know what these graphs leave out. You can (and do) talk about averages and generalizations all day, but the discussion is meaningless without a simultaneous discussion of variability, and you refuse to engage with the range of variability among males and among females. None of the studies that deal with averages can tell you, for example, how the top 95% of girls rank against the population of boys. They would certainly be superior on many measures to the middle and lower ranking boys into the lower teen years, if not longer.

These averages are commonsense well-known and therefore, taken alone, uninteresting. They are also misleading if not paired with information about the range of variation. Maybe your refusal to engage with variation is why you relentlessly claim steroid abuse any time you see a woman with a degree muscle mass or level of performance that is higher than your taste prefers.

[garcon55]

Originally Posted by del [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

Of course I can read a graph and, more importantly I know what these graphs leave out. You can (and do) talk about averages and generalizations all day, but the discussion is meaningless without a simultaneous discussion of variability, and you refuse to engage with the range of variability among males and among females. None of the studies that deal with averages can tell you, for example, how the top 95% of girls rank against the population of boys. They would certainly be superior on many measures to the middle and lower ranking boys into the lower teen years, if not longer.

These averages are commonsense well-known and therefore, taken alone, uninteresting. They are also misleading if not paired with information about the range of variation. Maybe your refusal to engage with variation is why you relentlessly claim steroid abuse any time you see a woman with a degree muscle mass or level of performance that is higher than your taste prefers.

This is not true. I spent last week discussing soccer matches between elite professional females vs average amateur males.
The opposite is true for Amazonia who generalizes elite women properties to "women" in general. But you don´t seem to complain there.

On the other hand, variability can be very misleading.
What does Gabi Garcia represent with respect to women? She is far in the Bell Curve tail and her case has no statistical meaning. Averages make much more sense than extreme cases.

As for steroids, it has nothing to do with women. I am pretty sure male crossfitters are just as juiced as the females. I just said that, with steroid addition, there is no reason why these women would not lift as heavy as elite males, what they do. Because steroids emulate testosterone, which is the main male advantage.

If you want to believe that all these athletes stay with some energy drink and some orange juice as they all claim in their kitchen, then i am fine with it, but there is no basis for discussion between us.

[garcon55]

Originally Posted by del [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]

how the top 95% of girls rank against the population of boys

That was the point i was discussing with Amazonia.
I don´t get where those claims are coming from.

The U15 girls of olympique Lyon surely belong to the Top 95% and still can be defeated by average/below average boys.
Elite women soccer team in the top 99% get defeated bby below average male teams consistently. You have to go pretty low in the male divisions to find a male village team which could lose to those elite women.

There was a discussion about variability on a another thread but you just ignored it.