Interesting Links for 17-08-2016
Women Athletes Gave Up Gonads And More To Continue Olympic Competition
(tags: women testosterone mutilation OhForFucksSake olympics sports )
Nice breakdown of costs and profits on a Kickstarter novel
(tags: kickstarter business publishing CrowdFunding viaTheFerrett )
My favourite commentary on No Man's Sky
(tags: games funny video )
How to lie
( Read more... )
The thing is that the average man, even when fit, can not compete with a high level female athlete. We have this delusion that you can take an average person, train the shit out of them, and turn them into a Pro-level beast. But, most sports simply don't work that way. Most Olympians start their "training" to be Olympians around 9 or 10. Some earlier, a few later, but, as a general rule, if you're not playing your sport by late childhood, it's not going to happen. The idea that someone is going to intentionally misgender themselves in order to become competitive, at the professional or Olympic level, is inane. For that to work out, you'd have to be a naturally high level athlete *and* get extensive training.
(notable exceptions include marksmanship type sports.)
And, that's what's going on with MMA fighter Fallon Fox. Fox is a trans woman who possessed a certain level of natural athletic talent. And, there's been a ton of controversy over her eligibility to fight other women in MMA. At the moment, she is allowed to. But, it should be noted that her wins are mostly knock outs. Her losses are TKOs. And, she has caused devastating injuries to many of her opponents. (broken jaws, cracked eye sockets). Additionally, she's significantly older than any of the other "prime' athletes.
It's obvious that she has some distinct advantages, having undergone puberty as a male. However, it's also obvious that those advantages do not, in themselves, lead to her totally dominating the sport. Many people think she should be banned from competing. And, many people think that's a trans-phobic view. And, that since someone like Fallon isn't exactly undefeated, that the sport itself can work it out "naturally".
Also, there are "gender neutral" sports like American Ninja Warrior. Both genders compete together. And, it is male dominated. But, there are women who compete and advance. I like that. This way we get to see the entire field at once.
So, where and how do you draw that line? We really just don't know.
Reply
Definitely not under this delusion myself.
The idea that someone is going to intentionally misgender themselves in order to become competitive
Sure -- I was trying to say similar myself but didn't phrase it as succinctly.
So, where and how do you draw that line? We really just don't know.
Yes. I think it's going to be more important. Estimates are that something like 0.3% of the population of the US is transsexual. That's likely to be an underestimate given that it is really something people are extremely prejudiced about. Even if it is 0.3% (and many of those being very reluctant to appear in public "out") then as prejudice (hopefully) lessens we will see this become more important.
there's been a ton of controversy over her eligibility to fight other women in MMA.
Sure -- I can understand. No idea what I think about that. But MMA is really quite a minority sport compared with most track and field athletics where, my own school experience at least, everyone gets to try all a lot of them. With something like running where most people try it and there's comparatively a lot of funding then the "top end" is going to be much much more competitive in the sense that in any sport the best people are the best people out of the proportion of the population who have tried it.
There must be very few olympic events where the gold medal winning woman would have got a medal in the men's event.
Reply
MMA is actually a multi-billion dollar sport. There's far more money on the table than in track and field. But, if you take track and field, specifically marathons, this picture gets even sillier. The average man runs a marathon in around 4hrs. The top 200 female runners all average under 2:30. If the numbers are correct, then the top ten women are all in the top 300 of all runners. Basically, all your potential "gender cheaters" exist in a very small band of Kenyan and Ethiopian men. (See here too)
There must be very few Olympic events where the gold medal winning woman would have got a medal in the men's event.
Yep. But, women do significantly better in all archery and marksmanship sports. They do better or are equal in all Equestrian sports. And, if gymnastics were co-ed, all the top athletes would be women. The same goes with singles figure skating. Supposedly, diving is the same as gymnastics and skating too. Women are also better speed climbers than men.
Reply
No worries I wasn't offended, just clarifying.
MMA is actually a multi-billion dollar sport. There's far more money on the table than in track and field.
Hmm... I'm not sure about this... I mean track and field as a whole is certainly into the multi-billions. But really we're thinking of the competitive field. What proportion of people do you think actually TRY MMA versus try sprinting. If your competitive field is only a few tens of thousands, rather than billions then you are not seeing the same part of the statistical distribution. Not to disparage them as athletes -- but when we think about the results you gave above about Kenyan and Ethopian men, that didn't become clear until marathon running as a sport became much much more popular.
The average man runs a marathon in around 4hrs... The top 200 female runners all average under 2:30. If the numbers are correct, then the top ten women are all in the top 300 of all runners.
The average man doesn't get round the course. 4 hours is a pretty good time for someone who really wants to push themselves but isn't an athlete. It's what I'd aim for if I did a marathon (based on 1/2 marathon in 51 minutes).
But we're talking about the top end. In 2012 London olympics the fastest female in the marathon Tiki Gelena from Ethiopia finished in 2:23:07 -- an incredible time. But had she been in the men's event she would have been 64th. The winning time was 2:08:01. (It actually can't be long before men break the 2 hour barrier IMHO). In the London Marathon this year the fastest woman would have been 22nd.
In the 100m at London 2012 the top two women would have made it into the semifinal heats but been almost a second off the pace.
Actually both of these are good achievements -- those women would have been in the field had it been just mixed.
But, women do significantly better in all archery and marksmanship sports. They do better or are equal in all Equestrian sports
I didn't know that... I guess those things are skill not strength and horse riding is often seen as a female pursuit. I wonder why, then, there's felt to be a need for gender categories there -- perhaps tradition?
Reply
I don't know for sure about the global picture. But, in the US and Canada, there's not nearly that kind of money or interest in the sport. My guess is one of the reasons running times for women have remained stable is due to the lack of sponsorship and incentive. I'd guess that's a big reason Ethiopians and Kenyans dominate the sport too. In the US, typically, if you can do track, there's a ton of pressure to get you to expand and do another more lucrative sport like baseball, soccer, or basketball. More or less, the people doing track into the college level are dedicated. Whereas other slightly slower people would go towards getting a scholarship in a different sport.
MMA is more like baseball. If you get someone great at judo, wrestling, Chinese grappling, or kickboxing, the push is to get them to try MMA. The same is the case for "good" but "not great" boxers. There is absolutely more money to be had in MMA, and related leagues, than there is for Kung-Fu expositions or Jujitsu tournaments. And, in fighting, unlike with running, the possible points of gender parity are few and far between.
But really we're thinking of the competitive field. What proportion of people do you think actually TRY MMA versus try sprinting.
We have made entirely different assumptions about our starting premises. When I think of "the competitive field", I'm thinking about top athletes. I am not at all thinking about the entire field of possible competitors. If you're trying to compare a broad section of people based on gender performance markers, that's a separate conversation from the one I thought I was having. I don't think there's enough data for a definitive medical or performance answer, if we're talking about everyone (or even just everyone who does a particular sport).
The average man doesn't get round the course
I meant the average man running a marathon. Sorry, I thought that was assumed we were talking about athletes as opposed to average people. But, to compare a top marathon person to an average individual, again, is why, imo, the conversation about trans people and testosterone levels seems ridiculous. There is an incredibly small pool of people who could even pull off some type of "misgendered advantage" to any significant benefit. When you're talking about the Olympics or large amounts of money, there's far more ability and incentive to dope.
"But we're talking about the top end. In 2012 London olympics the fastest female in the marathon Tiki Gelena from Ethiopia finished in 2:23:07 -- an incredible time. But had she been in the men's event she would have been 64th..."
Right. That is exactly where I was going. See, again, to me, this another reason the larger official conversation is sorta tone deaf and dumb. To be able to beat the fastest woman or to even beat "The Lady Records", you're already talking about an elite athlete. That's a small enough pool that everyone probably knows or is at least aware of everyone else. Unless we are talking about the very top tier, for marathons, it really doesn't matter what gender the average Jack competes under. The times are personal achievements and nothing more. At least, that's how I see it.
"I didn't know that... I guess those things are skill not strength and horse riding is often seen as a female pursuit. I wonder why, then, there's felt to be a need for gender categories there -- perhaps tradition? "
Equestrian is generally mixed these days. Part of it is that it's a 'rich girls" sport. But, really, it's because gender doesn't matter. But, women nearly always under-perform in the quarter mile race.Horse racing has women, but men tend to be better jockies, for a variety of reasons. (some of them are not due to biology)
As for "shooting things', women are better at the type of point by point multitasking needed. Their hips balance and stabilize better; consistent micro-balancing is crucial to shooting accurately. Also, there's a seemingly gender based depth/spatial perception difference that women have a natural advantage with.
Reply
You might be surprised. I suspect the MMA figure you give is a "global turnover" figure -- so "multi-billion" is not in fact that big if that figure is achieved by putting together the turnover from every event associated with MMA -- but perhaps you mean something else. The turnover for the London marathon alone is around about 20 million dollars. The New York marathon is larger and that's just one event. Getting to the "billions" figure doesn't seem so difficult but maybe I am extrapolating too much and it falls off really quickly. (But smaller and not famous races I have been I estimate a turnover of a million dollars just on entry fees.)
it really doesn't matter what gender the average Jack competes under. The times are personal achievements and nothing more. At least, that's how I see it.
Completely agree. In most distance races the majority of the field don't care about their "place". (I get sort of interested in how I am compared with men in the 40 something category I guess.) But yes, it's the times.
Reply
Probably not. I just looked this up, the average track athlete, without sponsors, make between $5-6k a year. That is lower than the lowest paid WNBA player. (Around 38k). Here's another article:
"But separate surveys taken by the Track & Field Athletes Association, a labor union, and the USATF Foundation came to the same conclusions: More than 50 percent of those ranked in the world's top 10 earn less than $15,000 from their sport, and there are wide variations between events." - indy star.
Meanwhile the UFC, alone, just sold for 4 billion. In the UFC, the lowest paid fighters, without other sponsors, fighting twice a year, make at least 5k from Reebok. The under card amounts vary. But, you're generally looking at 12k per fight on top of that. Here's one that's suggesting 50K average
Despite the phenomena of Usain Bolt, track is just not that popular. He represents the best you can do. But, most of his money is based on sneaker deals.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
2) You stated that A) "I suspect the MMA figure you give is a "global turnover" figure -- so "multi-billion" is not in fact that big if that figure is achieved by putting together the turnover from every event associated with MMA -" and B) regarding track "etting to the "billions" figure doesn't seem so difficult but maybe I am extrapolating too much and it falls off really quickly"
3) So, I pointed out that 1 league out of a global pool of 12 or so MMA leagues just sold for 4 Billion dollars. UFC brings in about 1.2 billion a year in revenue. ONE league (that's the name) from Asia is valued at around a billion dollars as well. That is league is less than 10 years old.
Additionally, I pointed out that runners don't make very much money. I pointed out how little average and top tier runners make, in comparison to the LOWEST paid people in women's basketball and the UFC league.
4) Your response to that is "Ah but we were talking about turnover for the discipline." That means that either A) you chose ignore exactly what I wrote or B) you did not actually read my comment.
5) So, I called you out on that. You come back with “I genuinely did believe that was what your assertion was about." This is also unsatisfactory because again, this response means that either A) you chose ignore what I wrote previously or B) you did not actually read my comment.
This is just straight up rude.
Reply
Reply
But, I can troll with the best of them and like arguing on the internet. Usually, I abstain; It's obnoxious behavior. But, every so often, like when someone turns my casual fun time into and intentionally obtuse troll, I indulge. This would be one of them there times.
Take care and have a lovely day!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment