Quote:
Originally Posted by Peanut
So, I'm kind of wondering what the point of the statement is though? The more I think abot it, 15, 16 and 17 year old men/guys/kids who play at a high-level of their sport could probably beat women in most sports. Tennis, golf, skiing, luge, bobsled, speed-skating, track & field, basketball etc. etc.
Just because men are better than women at sports (in most cases due to strength and speed, as Vlad pointed out earlier) doesn't mean that women shouldn't compete in sports. Or that women's sports shouldn't be part of the Olympics.
And it doesn't really mean their accomplishments are less worthwhile when they do achieve success in their respective sports.
|
I don't agree that they could beat women in most sports at that age. Of course, there's no way to quantify it, so we'll just have to disagree about it.
It bothers me when I see kids that age beat Olympic athletes. Maybe it's just me. I have no problem with women sports in the Olympics in general, and realize grown men at the pinnacle of their sports would likely beat women at the pinnacle of the same sport, but when 15, 16, and 17 year olds are able to handle these supposed Olympic athletes quite easily, to the point of them needing to put them into headlocks, it makes me question the health of that women's sport.
Vlad's already gone over a lot of it. It's not just the speed or strength, it's the overall skill of the women's ice hockey team. That is something women can do and succeed at without needing to be 230 pounds, but the level of it is a lot lower than it could be.