Women competing with men in hoops

[jimsumner]

Let me expand on some points made earlier.

The Duke women have never had a player dunk in a game.

Never. Not once.

And Duke has had All-America and All-ACC level players in the 6-4 or taller range. Iciss Tillis, Krystal Thomas, Chante Black, Alison Bales, Azura Stevens, et. al.

How many of those male 6-5 D-3 players cannot dunk?

Not many, I suspect.

Basketball is more than dunking, of course. But I use that as an example of the difference in athleticism.

Elizabeth Williams was an All-America center at Duke a couple of years ago. She is 6-3. She would have been the second-shortest player on the Duke men's team last season and she certainly does not have ACC perimeter skills.

The best way to compare men and women is a sport like track and field or swimming, where distances are standard.

Let me give one example. The fastest 100-meter dash ever run by a woman is 10.49 by Florence Griffith-Joyner.

The North Carolina High School boy's record is 10.0. The fastest woman ever on her fastest day would have been smoked by Trentavis Friday on his best day.

I suspect we would find comparable results across the board.

[CDu]

I always feel like a sexist a-hole when sharing my opinions of men and women competing in basketball, but I base mine on my actual experiences at Duke. I played pickup with some of the Women's team a bit one summer before their run to the 1999 title game (so close that year for both teams!), and held my own. Back then I was 5'11" and probably around 175lbs. On my best day I could dunk a volleyball, so not a terrible athlete for pickup games, but nowhere near a real college athlete. I matched up with Georgia Schweitzer (she played a couple seasons in the WNBA for what its worth) for one of the games and did well enough, but will grant that she and the other starters that played weren't going 100%. I will say that some of them were playing VERY physically, though (borderline dirty with the amount of knee and elbow contact) to possibly gain an edge physically when there wasn't one. So if they were doing that in pickup basketball against some scrubs like me, then I don't know what would have happened against better, more athletic players. Now for Stewart, who has elite skills and a crazy wingspan, things might be a little different, but I still don't think her ceiling is all that high. I went to a small high school and there is no guarantee she could have started on my senior year basketball team. Now that was a really good year for us as Casey Sanders was a 6'9" freshman and two others ended up with DI and DII offers, but even with her elite skill, I am not 100% sure she could have beaten out our PF for the starting job. She probably would have, but he was definitely a better athlete. But certainly, we played some teams in our league where she would have easily been their best player. I am sure she could have been a starter on a boy's team in high school, even the larger ones. College level? Harder to gauge, as the only lower division team I have any first-hand experience with was DII University of Tampa (we used their practice facilities every once in a while and got to play some pickup games). While back in my day I could shoot as well as anyone on their team, I was easily outclassed athletically by even their worst guard. I don't know how good my data is or how relevant it is for the Stewart question, but it certainly skews my view of things.

My experiences are surprisingly similar to yours, both in terms of our size (you were 5-10 lbs heavier), athleticism (just shy of dunking a bball), era, and results against women's players. It is just hard to explain just how much different the level of athleticism is. Especially for the taller women. One of the reasons Stewart is so great is because she is 6'4" but much more skilled and athletic than the other 6'4" players. But she is way less athletic than guards in the men's game at the collegiate level.

[duke4ever19]

Turning from soccer to tennis (now that the door is open), I recall listening to Chris Evert say that when she was in her prime (top 2-3 in women's tennis) she could not win a set from her then-husband, who was ranked about 150 or 160 among the men (IIRC). She openly scoffed at the notion that women were even close to men on the tennis court.

I remember her saying that.

I grew up in Florida and played tennis from about six up until I graduated from high school. I played a while on the state level and was pretty darn good, if I do say so myself. I was lucky enough to play some pretty good players at various clubs including five WTA players of various rankings (Sometimes it was as easy as approaching them and saying, "You want to play a couple sets?"). However,my favorite tennis memory is playing a quick set with Jennifer Capriati on the cusp of her late resurgence. Well, she beat the crap out of me, but I felt like I was simply too star-struck to play up to my abilities. However, I like to imagine that I could have gotten at least one set on her if we played a couple more times.

I find women's basketball hard to watch. I would go so far as to describe it as "ugly", but women's tennis is another story.

[Nick]

I can't recall where I've seen this, but I recall reading that the best female athletes are on par with the best 15/16-year-old boys in running and possibly in other athletic endeavors.

[kmspeaks]

Some similar discussion came up a couple weeks ago when the Australian women's soccer team scrimmaged against a bunch of 15 year old boys and lost 7-0. I think the boys were pretty good, like junior national team type players rather than random people they grabbed off the street, but nevertheless it has sparked some discussions on what level of men would be equal to a women's World Cup team, and even broader issues such as whether women deserve equal pay when their level of play is lower.

I have two daughters and it's a difficult discussion to have - we're supposed to tell them that anything is possible and that they can do anything boys can do, but the reality is that there are physical differences that can't be denied.

Not sure how old your daughters are but I wouldn't fret too much about that discussion. When I was 7 and 8 years old I convinced my dad to let me play tackle football with the boys. I told my 3rd grade teacher I was going to be the first female linebacker in the NFL, she asked me for my autograph. A couple years later I figured it out on my own that it could never happen and it was no big deal. I've never understood why we feel a need to tell girls they can do anything the boys can do.

If they're hell bent on beating the boys at something just teach them a good rise ball.

[UrinalCake]

With regards to tennis - I heard this issue discussed on air several years ago by Mary Carillo, the famed tennis announcer. Her co-host (maybe Bud Collins?) straight up asked her whether Serena Williams, who was ranked #1 at the time, would beat the top men's players. Carillo responded that not only could just about any professional men's player beat Serena, but many junior level players could be competitive against her. The way she explained it was this: the top women's players in tennis were all 19-20 years old, while the top men's players were much older, around their late 20's. That's because of the different level of physical maturity required to play in each of the sports. An 18 year old boy would have no chance against the top men's players, so therefore an 18 year old girl would definitely have no chance against them. Carillo explained it much more eloquently, but I think that was the gist of it.

My own personal story is that I was an absolute nobody on the cross country team in high school. I had never run before in my life and my junior year I decided to sign up just to have something to do. I wasn't even good enough to actually run in the meets. But there was this girl on our team who was all-state in just about everything, and she never once beat me in any distance in any of our practice runs.

[JasonEvans]

It is worth noting that while there is a strong athletic component to tennis, is not nearly as dependent on athleticism (strength, speed, leaping ability) as basketball. Much of tennis success is the skill of hitting the ball. As a result, I think women have a better chance of competing with men in a skill-dependent sport like tennis (or golf) than in a more athletic-dependent sport like basketball.

Put another way, if we were playing a game of horse, I suspect that the top women players could compete quite nicely (depending on whether dunks were allowed) with even some major college male basketball players. But the moment you get to start playing D, the women would be toast.

-Jason "I realize one of the problems with my initial post to start the thread was that a large high school and a D3 program are often very similar... heck, the large high school will often have 3-5 players significantly better than anyone on the D3 team" Evans

[mph]

I have two daughters and it's a difficult discussion to have - we're supposed to tell them that anything is possible and that they can do anything boys can do, but the reality is that there are physical differences that can't be denied.

Great thought. I think this sentence is one of the reasons this thread is interesting beyond just the question of athletic differences between men and women. My wife and I have tried to avoid telling our children (boys and a girl) that they can do anything they dream because its obviously not true. Each of us has natural limitations; physically, intellectually, emotionally, etc. I worked incredibly hard just to make my varsity high school basketball team and no amount of work would have made me a high school starter, let alone a college basketball player.

There's a big difference between limits and perceived limits. I want my daughter and sons to find places where their talent and passion converge and then work as hard as they can to find the true limit of what they can do. Hopefully they will exceed what they (and I) think is possible.

[Indoor66]

It is worth noting that while there is a strong athletic component to tennis, is not nearly as dependent on athleticism (strength, speed, leaping ability) as basketball. Much of tennis success is the skill of hitting the ball. As a result, I think women have a better chance of competing with men in a skill-dependent sport like tennis (or golf) than in a more athletic-dependent sport like basketball.

Put another way, if we were playing a game of horse, I suspect that the top women players could compete quite nicely (depending on whether dunks were allowed) with even some major college male basketball players. But the moment you get to start playing D, the women would be toast.

-Jason "I realize one of the problems with my initial post to start the thread was that a large high school and a D3 program are often very similar... heck, the large high school will often have 3-5 players significantly better than anyone on the D3 team" Evans

Women cannot compete with men in golf if they play the exact same course. The length difference would kill them. A long hitting woman goes out about 280 - 290. A long hitting man goes out about 315-330. That difference alone will spell the difference in outcome due to the second shots and the ability (or lack thereof) to hit Par fives in 2. Length is the killer for women in golf.

[JasonEvans]

Women cannot compete with men in golf if they play the exact same course. The length difference would kill them. A long hitting woman goes out about 280 - 290. A long hitting man goes out about 315-330. That difference alone will spell the difference in outcome due to the second shots and the ability (or lack thereof) to hit Par fives in 2. Length is the killer for women in golf.

Yes, but a good pro women's golfer could probably compete pretty favorably with a decent male college player. She night be at a small disadvantage on driving length, but would easily make up for it with her short game and putting (which would likely be significantly better). Put the very best women's basketball player in the world up against the 10th man on any D1 basketball team and he would crush her every single time. It wouldn't even be a little competitive.

-Jason "serious question -- in a game of one-on-one to 11 with one of the Duke men's basketball team walk-ons, would Brenna score more than 2 or 3 points?" Evans

[JPtheGame]

I played D1 baseball. Our school had the conference POY in women's hoops in back to back years. We were friends and played head up a million times to 10. I'm very average in hoops and she never scored more than 2 buckets in any game.
The problem is that stats and past performance become irrelevant because she couldn't get to any of her preferred spots on the floor while I could get to anywhere I wanted. So basically she had to play completely out of her comfort zone the entire time. The best I can explain is to imagine playing entire games exclusively with your off hand.
We even added a stipulation that I couldn't score from the paint to offset the physical advantage. Same result.
Having said all that, I also think it doesn't matter. We should only compare like against like. Joey Votto is physically better than babe Ruth in every measurable way. But babe dominated his era at a level unlike anything else in history:

[subzero02]

Just to continue my uninformed argument that Breanna could compete for a starting job at a higher level than a mediocre, small guy's high school team. Sure, women generally can't keep up because of strength and hops, but Breanna is no ordinary player, and there are a lot of mediocre Div III teams.

Here 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ge-basketball/

somebody else claiming she is the best women's player ever, and that was 2 years ago.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article...ll-player-ever

she's 6'4 with a 7'1" wingspan. She hits every open shot (538 has a nice chart of her shots). She has been dunking a long time, and the Duke men's team has started guys who seem unable to dunk in game situations

Not attempting to dunk in game situations and not being able to dunk in game situations aren't the same thing. I don't know which starters you have in mind but I have never questioned any Duke player's ability to dunk. A blue devil with limited leaping ability only needs two things to dunk in a game situation, a break away and enough courage to face K's wrath if he blows the dunk. Almost all starters get a shot at the former but most gravity bound duke players don't possess the latter.





The women's team at my high school, Pensacola high, was ranked #1 in the country by USA today at one point when I was there.
Michelle Snow, of volunteer fame, was a starter on the team. She dunked with ease and has dunked with 2 hands several times in games. That said, every player on the varsity boys team was definitely more athletic than her and her athleticism probably would've ranked in the bottom half of the jv team too.

[CDu]

I played D1 baseball. Our school had the conference POY in women's hoops in back to back years. We were friends and played head up a million times to 10. I'm very average in hoops and she never scored more than 2 buckets in any game.
The problem is that stats and past performance become irrelevant because she couldn't get to any of her preferred spots on the floor while I could get to anywhere I wanted. So basically she had to play completely out of her comfort zone the entire time. The best I can explain is to imagine playing entire games exclusively with your off hand.
We even added a stipulation that I couldn't score from the paint to offset the physical advantage. Same result.
Having said all that, I also think it doesn't matter. We should only compare like against like. Joey Votto is physically better than babe Ruth in every measurable way. But babe dominated his era at a level unlike anything else in history:

Yeah, it is really hard to explain just how different the level of athleticism is. And that difference in athleticism makes her advantage in skill obsolete. She wouldn't be able to create separation to get her shot on the perimeter, wouldn't be able to beat players off the dribble, and wouldn't be able to shoot over players. And on the defensive end, she would have no chance because players around her size would be much stronger, quicker/faster, and better leapers.

That isn't meant to be a slam of her. It just isn't a level playing field physically. She is on the extreme end of physical gifts for a female athlete, but she would be far far far below average in terms of strength and athleticism competing against 18-22 year old male bball players. It is sort of pointless to compare because it is just two entirely different games.

[Wander]

I wouldn't think she could outmuscle a Duke men's player, much less a future NBA starter, but I'd take my chances on her scoring 10 ppg for Wesleyan or MIT.

MIT made the D3 Final Four a few years ago!

On the other hand, I know a guy who played for CalTech during their 100-whatever game losing streak. I'm sure she could have started there.

[JPtheGame]

Yeah, it is really hard to explain just how different the level of athleticism is. And that difference in athleticism makes her advantage in skill obsolete. She wouldn't be able to create separation to get her shot on the perimeter, wouldn't be able to beat players off the dribble, and wouldn't be able to shoot over players. And on the defensive end, she would have no chance because players around her size would be much stronger, quicker/faster, and better leapers.

That isn't meant to be a slam of her. It just isn't a level playing field physically. She is on the extreme end of physical gifts for a female athlete, but she would be far far far below average in terms of strength and athleticism competing against 18-22 year old male bball players. It is sort of pointless to compare because it is just two entirely different games.

Maybe the more interesting question is who would do better playing against men, Stewart or Griner?
While Stewart is clearly the better (or at least more productive) women's player, Griner brings a level of athletic ability that is closer to what it would take to play meaningful minutes in the mens game. Im not suggesting NBA level but if you drop Stewart and Griner onto a lower Division NCAA team or a NAIA mens team, I wonder if Griner might not be able to make a bigger impact. AT the very minimum her size 6'8 207 (ex. Tatum 6'8 205) and ability to elevate might give her a shot to get off her shot.

[gep]

My recollections... (FWIW)

Billy Jean KIng vs Bobby Riggs. Billy Jean won, but if I think I recall correctly, Billy Jean could use the doubles court to hit to, but Bobby was limited to the singles court to hit to...

More recently, Michelle Wie... never made a PGA tournament's cut in a few tries...

[Indoor66]

My recollections... (FWIW)

Billy Jean KIng vs Bobby Riggs. Billy Jean won, but if I think I recall correctly, Billy Jean could use the doubles court to hit to, but Bobby was limited to the singles court to hit to...

King was 26 years younger! Riggs retired from Professional Tennis in 1951 and the match took place in 1973. NOt only was he older, the game and equipment changed dramatically in the interim. Riggs was still a not really a good senior player and definitely not a world class competitor. King was at or near the top of her game. It was Age vs Youth.

[phaedrus]

Let me give one example. The fastest 100-meter dash ever run by a woman is 10.49 by Florence Griffith-Joyner.

The North Carolina High School boy's record is 10.0. The fastest woman ever on her fastest day would have been smoked by Trentavis Friday on his best day.

I suspect we would find comparable results across the board.

But 10.0 is a world class men's time. It is not some mere high school mark.

FloJo's 10.49 would have been the 4th fastest qualifying time in the ACC Men's 100m this year, and the 8th fastest in the final (but the final had an illegal wind). The fastest women in the world would be quite solid, though not elite, Men's Division I track and field athletes. They would certainly compete for championships in Division III.

[CDu]

King was 26 years younger! Riggs retired from Professional Tennis in 1951 and the match took place in 1973. NOt only was he older, the game and equipment changed dramatically in the interim. Riggs was still a not really a good senior player and definitely not a world class competitor. King was at or near the top of her game. It was Age vs Youth.

There is also some debate as to whether Riggs threw the match. But even if he didn't, the age difference alone made it not exactly a comparable matchup. Riggs was 55 years old at the time of that match.

[PackMan97]

4 or 5

There was a guy on my intrammural basketball team who was a practice player for the Wolfpack Women. He was one of the better players in our league, but we were also the LOWEST open level in intramurals.

For most sports, women simply don't have the strength or speed to compete at the same level with men.