|
|
#11
12-28-2006, 04:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
[ QUOTE ]
Shot put- I think women wouldn't do terribly here. First, the number of shot putters is low, and second have you seen women bodybuilders? Women can artificially put on a lot of bulk using steroids. [/ QUOTE ] And steroids are banned from track and field events worldwide. Besides bodybuilders aren't that strong. I actually thought that the women would be way behind here, but the world record male shot put is only 1 meter ahead of the women's record. Once you drop off the top though the disparity between men and women becomes larger. It should also be noted that the women with the extreme distances are almost all from former nations that are former members of the Soviet Union and took place in the mid to late 80's when the Soviet female athletes were taking hormones that almost made them male and steroid testing less prevalent and effective. 
|
|
#12
12-28-2006, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
[ QUOTE ]
Softball- For positions other then pitcher I would expect the top ranked player at each position to be the top ranked corresponding baseball player. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't matter though if we can assume that pitchers and non-pitchers are of roughly equal value to a team. If you have 100 lemons and 100 limes, your sourest fruit will be the best lemon. If we can assume that pitching is half the battle, and batting fielding is half the battle, then if the best pitcher in the world were a female, she would be the #1 (or maybe 2 or 3 by semantics) ranked "softball player" in the world. The 200th best pitcher would be roughly the 400th best player. Other things to think about are that (I'm guessing) your arm doesn't tire when pitching a softball the way it does in baseball. So a good pitcher might be much more valuable to a team than a good batter/fielder. On the other hand, with the disparity in prowess between the (professional male) players batting and fielding, the value of a "dominating" (female, or retired baseball pitcher who now plays in softball leagues, or whatever) pitcher goes way down. If you don't see what I mean, imagine two little league teams in a game. One team has a sensational pitcher, and that will be a significant edge. Now imagine those two little league pitchers pitching for MLB teams to MLB offenses. The difference in their skill is essentially negligible; it will just come down to which team is better at slaughtering 40 mph meatballs. So in other words, I'm saying the best female softball player will on face value be roughly equal to the best female pitcher's rank times 2, but that it's arguably higher or lower depending on the significance of a couple other factors (and thus the value of a pitcher in the first place in the instance where men and women both compete).
|
|
#13
12-28-2006, 05:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
Tennis - 10000
Golf - On any given day a female golfer can beat a male golfer. Even annika has about a non-zero chance at beating Tiger for one round on certain courses. Golf requires much less athelticism than tennis so Im going to guess around 400. 100 Meters - I believe Marion Jones ran a 10.49 when juiced up and this was the fastest of all time. Most hs sprinters can do this. About 50000 or more. Marathon - Ill go with an answer posted above Softball - >> one million, 16 lb Shot Put also >> one million
|
|
#14
12-28-2006, 05:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
[ QUOTE ]
Shot put- I think women wouldn't do terribly here. First, the number of shot putters is low, and second have you seen women bodybuilders? Women can artificially put on a lot of bulk using steroids. [/ QUOTE ] The first point is valid. But the shot put is, of the 6 sports listed, amongst the most dependent on raw physical prowess (it's pretty even between this and the 100m). You can't compare the shot put to golf, tennis, softball, and even the marathon and claim that innate physical attributes are a point for it (rather than a big point against it).
|
|
#16
12-28-2006, 07:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
[ QUOTE ]
I think coming up with a ranking for the marathon would be easiest since we can just compare the times of the top male and female runners. With a quick google search I found that the winner of the women's marathon in the last Olympics finished in 2h 26min. If she ran the same time in the men's marthon this would be good for 62nd place. As far as I know the men and women ran the same course in the Olympics. I also think it's a fair assumption that all (or a great majority) of the world's top marathoners were competing in that marathon. So I think it's pretty fair to say that in a unisex ranking of marathon runners the top woman would be somewhere around 60th place. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry about the long quote. I failed in getting the essence of it from a shorter quote. However, this is terribly wrong. Women would do a lot worse than this. First, one of many reasons why you can't draw a conclusion based on this data: The mere fact that a majority of the top runners don't participate in the world championships. Usually the very top runners of every country do participate, but a lot of the worl-class but not world-champion-class runners don't show up. As an example, I, myself, have a Swedish championship relay running bronze medal, and I'm nowhere near even top 100 in Sweden. Anyway, lets look at some facts. The world record for women is 2:15:25. In 2006 so far (list updated 08/12/2006) 452 men has made a marathon faster than that (see link below). Actually, 2:15:25 (womens world record) is not a very good result for men. You might win the Swedish national championship, but you have no chance internationally. There are so many men that perform way better than that on a regular basis that even the biggest athletics geek couldn't keep track of all of them. Reference: http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/...al=A/index.html
|
|
#18
12-28-2006, 08:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
Tennis: 350
Golf: 75 100 meters: 500 Marathon: 200 Softball: 250 16 lb shot put: 50,000
|
|
#19
12-28-2006, 08:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
[ QUOTE ]
Tennis - 10000 Golf - On any given day a female golfer can beat a male golfer. Even annika has about a non-zero chance at beating Tiger for one round on certain courses. Golf requires much less athelticism than tennis so Im going to guess around 400. 100 Meters - I believe Marion Jones ran a 10.49 when juiced up and this was the fastest of all time. Most hs sprinters can do this. About 50000 or more. Marathon - Ill go with an answer posted above Softball - >> one million, 16 lb Shot Put also >> one million [/ QUOTE ] These are way off. Tennis is probably around 500. Golf is most likely around 100. Annika and Wie have been somewhat competitive on the PGA Tour. I think either could go through Q school and get a PGA Tour card.
|
|
#20
12-28-2006, 09:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rating The Best Woman In Each Sport Part 1
[ QUOTE ]
These are way off. Tennis is probably around 500. Golf is most likely around 100. Annika and Wie have been somewhat competitive on the PGA Tour. I think either could go through Q school and get a PGA Tour card. [/ QUOTE ] Golf isn't anywhere close to 100. What you're forgetting is that Annika and Wie handpicked events on courses where driving distance was INCREDIBLY less important, relatively, to most courses played on the PGA. Throughout an entire PGA season, which IS a unisex sport/association, Annika doesn't rank in the top 200. Not even close. Day in and day out, she misses every cut, save possibly 1 or 2, on a typical PGA season. She loses her tour card without a doubt. For example, Notah Begay III, who is ranked well out of the top 100, would absolutely crush Annika throughout a PGA season in nearly every meaningful stat.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
