Women competing with men in hoops

[JasonEvans]

At pick 53 the Denver Pyrite is tempted to draft Breanna Stewart...

Serious question -- at what level could Brenna Stewart compete and still be a "starter" on a team. Here are your options:

1- large high school (1000+ male students) freshman team
2- large high school JV team
3- small high school (less than 200 male students) varsity
4- medium high school (200-1000 male students) varsity
5- large high school (1000+ male students) varsity
6- D3 (no scholarships) college program
7- D2 (scholarships) college program
8- small D1 program
9- mid-major D1 program
10- BCS D1 program

-Jason "for the purposes of this argument, lets talk about typical schools in each of these categories -- not get into the weeds with small high schools that are basketball factories and the such" Evans

[CDu]

High school. The sex difference in size and athleticism would offset the skill advantage she would have once you get to the college level. She is just 6'4", but her skill set is that of a stretch-4 or stretch-5. She just doesn't have the skillset or the quickness to play guard in the men's game, and she doesn't have the size, strength, or leaping ability to play in the frontcourt at the college level.

[johnb]

Serious question -- at what level could Brenna Stewart compete and still be a "starter" on a team. Here are your options:

1- large high school (1000+ male students) freshman team
2- large high school JV team
3- small high school (less than 200 male students) varsity
4- medium high school (200-1000 male students) varsity
5- large high school (1000+ male students) varsity
6- D3 (no scholarships) college program
7- D2 (scholarships) college program
8- small D1 program
9- mid-major D1 program
10- BCS D1 program

-Jason "for the purposes of this argument, lets talk about typical schools in each of these categories -- not get into the weeds with small high schools that are basketball factories and the such" Evans

Don't BCS D1 programs (like UConn) get regular nonscholarship college guys to play against their teams to beef up what they can expect from other good teams? I'm assuming those guys are former high school starters (4-5 on Jason's scale), but I don't recall seeing how well the guys actually compete against elite college women's teams or whether they are brought in just for a little muscular change of pace. I actually have no idea, but for top tier women's talent, I guess I'd go with a D3, no scholarships, college program, though I understand the argument that even the best woman's players couldn't compete with the speed and strength of elite 20 year old men.

[JasonEvans]

Serious question -- at what level could Brenna Stewart compete and still be a "starter" on a team. Here are your options:

1- large high school (1000+ male students) freshman team
2- large high school JV team
3- small high school (less than 200 male students) varsity
4- medium high school (200-1000 male students) varsity
5- large high school (1000+ male students) varsity
6- D3 (no scholarships) college program
7- D2 (scholarships) college program
8- small D1 program
9- mid-major D1 program
10- BCS D1 program

To answer my own question -- 4.

Somewhere around #4 on my scale, the game starts being played above the rim A LOT. There will be multiple guys on the floor who can dunk with ease and the guards/wings are really, really quick. In short, the physical limitations of a female athlete just become too great to overcome. That is where I think Brenna and other elite female athletes reach their peak level of really being able to compete with male athletes.

I have some perspective on this. Two of the coaches at my son's high school are former WNBA players. Their understanding of the angles and geometry of the game are phenomenal. Their ability to hit the open shot is just jaw-dropping. But, when they sometimes play pick up ball with the varsity boy's players, they do not stand out from the rest of the guys as much as you might think. My kids go to a small high school (about 160 boys). Now, these WNBA ladies are 3-5 years retired from pro basketball and are not close to their peak playing condition, but the fact that they cannot dominate small high school guys is pretty telling to me.

-Jason "the idea that Brenna could even be in the rotation on a D2 team seems highly unlikely to me" Evans

[CDu]

I played a lot of basketball growing up, and a lot of ball in college. During the summers it was not uncommon for some of the women's teamers to play pickup with the students/locals. As you said, they knew the game snd were good shooters (well, the guards were). But at 5'11", 170 and with really good speed/quickness but only fair leaping ability I could defend any of the guards and they had trouble defending me without sneaky-fouling (the types of fouls nobody calls in pickup games). And I was FAR from collegiate level basketball. I was just so much taller and more athletic that their skill advantage was negated.

Stewart is a PF/C, but at 6'4", 175 she would have to play SG or SF at most bigger high schools. She would be giving up at minimum 2-3 inches and 20-25 lbs if she tried to play in the post. And she doesn't have the athleticism to compete on the perimeter. Small/medium high school sounds about right.

[johnb]

I played a lot of basketball growing up, and a lot of ball in college. During the summers it was not uncommon for some of the women's teamers to play pickup with the students/locals. As you said, they knew the game snd were good shooters (well, the guards were). But at 5'11", 170 and with really good speed/quickness but only fair leaping ability I could defend any of the guards and they had trouble defending me without sneaky-fouling (the types of fouls nobody calls in pickup games). And I was FAR from collegiate level basketball. I was just so much taller and more athletic that their skill advantage was negated.

Stewart is a PF/C, but at 6'4", 175 she would have to play SG or SF at most bigger high schools. She would be giving up at minimum 2-3 inches and 20-25 lbs if she tried to play in the post. And she doesn't have the athleticism to compete on the perimeter. Small/medium high school sounds about right.

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/its-the-breanna-stewart-era-in-college-basketball/

somebody else claiming she is the best women's player ever, and that was 2 years ago.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67450458/uconns-breanna-stewart-best-womens-basketball-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.

You guys really don't think she'd get PT as a wing player at a nonscholarship place like Alfred, Elmira, or NYU?

[DukeHLM'13]

Don't BCS D1 programs (like UConn) get regular nonscholarship college guys to play against their teams to beef up what they can expect from other good teams? I'm assuming those guys are former high school starters (4-5 on Jason's scale), but I don't recall seeing how well the guys actually compete against elite college women's teams or whether they are brought in just for a little muscular change of pace.

I knew a couple guys who played on the "practice team" for the Duke Women when I was there (just a few years ago). The guys that I knew were definitely good high school players, probably could have played D-3 or maybe D-2 ball, and I know that it was pretty common for those guys to beat the girls when the scrimmaged.

[CDu]

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/its-the-breanna-stewart-era-in-college-basketball/

somebody else claiming she is the best women's player ever, and that was 2 years ago.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67450458/uconns-breanna-stewart-best-womens-basketball-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.

You guys really don't think she'd get PT as a wing player at a nonscholarship place like Alfred, Elmira, or NYU?

You are comparing her to other women's players though. You know how Duhon never seemed all that athletic/explosive in the men's game? Well, in those same pickup games, he would dunk easily and emphatically. He also shot a much higher percentage in those games. The quality of competition (in terms of size/speed/athleticism) absolutely affects ability to shoot and ability to dunk.

So, no, I don't think she would sniff PT at a D3 men's program. Just not big enough to play her position, just not athletic enough to play the perimeter. Could she stand around and make jumpers if left wide open? Sure. But she wouldn't be able to do anything else offensively, and she would get brutalized on defense.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

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/its-the-breanna-stewart-era-in-college-basketball/

somebody else claiming she is the best women's player ever, and that was 2 years ago.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67450458/uconns-breanna-stewart-best-womens-basketball-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.

You guys really don't think she'd get PT as a wing player at a nonscholarship place like Alfred, Elmira, or NYU?

As someone who when to a teeny tiny college (under 1000) that was classified some tiny division, she would have been the leading scorer on our nonscholarship roster of 8.

[johnb]

You are comparing her to other women's players though. You know how Duhon never seemed all that athletic/explosive in the men's game? Well, in those same pickup games, he would dunk easily and emphatically. He also shot a much higher percentage in those games. The quality of competition (in terms of size/speed/athleticism) absolutely affects ability to shoot and ability to dunk.

So, no, I don't think she would sniff PT at a D3 men's program. Just not big enough to play her position, just not athletic enough to play the perimeter. Could she stand around and make jumpers if left wide open? Sure. But she wouldn't be able to do anything else offensively, and she would get brutalized on defense.

There are almost 2000 men's college basketball teams with 32,000 mens players (including jv, practice squads, etc), but only 10,000 starters.

I guess it's okay to compare her to Duhon, though Duhon was ranked #7 in hs in the US and then drafted #38. This would mean Duhon was better than about 9962 of those 10000 starters (complicated by the early entries and the dozen international players drafted ahead of him, but you get the gist).

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.

Some of my thinking is based on a 2 on 2 pick up game I played in 20 years ago. Admittedly, I suck, but our opponents had been Div I women's All Americans, and they were impressive.

[Kedsy]

As someone who when to a teeny tiny college (under 1000) that was classified some tiny division, she would have been the leading scorer on our nonscholarship roster of 8.

Yeah, I think some people here are overselling D3. Maybe she couldn't start on every D3 team, but I bet she could start on some of them.

For example, I picked a school at random, called Wheelock College. Tallest guy on the roster is 6'5. Ithica College, same thing. Breanna Stewart would be the third tallest player on either of those rosters. My guess is she could play stretch 4 on teams like that and play adequate defense against most of the teams on their schedules. Maybe she'd get muscled around, but she'd score some, too. Not saying she'd be a star, but she could probably play and be a decent contributor.

[CDu]

There are almost 2000 men's college basketball teams with 32,000 mens players (including jv, practice squads, etc), but only 10,000 starters.

I guess it's okay to compare her to Duhon, though Duhon was ranked #7 in hs in the US and then drafted #38. This would mean Duhon was better than about 9962 of those 10000 starters (complicated by the early entries and the dozen international players drafted ahead of him, but you get the gist).

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.

Some of my thinking is based on a 2 on 2 pick up game I played in 20 years ago. Admittedly, I suck, but our opponents had been Div I women's All Americans, and they were impressive.

I think she would get outmuscled by any of the ~16000 frontcourt players in mens college bball, and out athleted by the ~16000 perimeter players.

[CDu]

Yeah, I think some people here are overselling D3. Maybe she couldn't start on every D3 team, but I bet she could start on some of them.

For example, I picked a school at random, called Wheelock College. Tallest guy on the roster is 6'5. Ithica College, same thing. Breanna Stewart would be the third tallest player on either of those rosters. My guess is she could play stretch 4 on teams like that and play adequate defense against most of the teams on their schedules. Maybe she'd get muscled around, but she'd score some, too. Not saying she'd be a star, but she could probably play and be a decent contributor.

Those two 6'5" guys on Wheelock are 220 and 238 pounds. That means she would be giving up 45 and 63 lbs on top of being shorter and less athletic.

No way she could defend PF/C at that level. Even on those teams, she would have to play the perimeter, and trust me those guys on the perimeter are WAY too quick and athletic for her.

Ithaca didn't have height, but they had 10 players of similar height and more weight and again more athleticism.

[Bluedog]

There was an article a while back from a (male) practice player at UConn talking about this to some extent. He said basically that the guys were told to go full throttle against the varsity women EXCEPT for blocking and dunking. But he also talked about the fact that former high school player male students also told him they thought they could take the women in a game and that they'd have no chance whatsoever. Not sure what level in the above that is. While the gap is wide, I think people are shortchanging her abilities and skill set a bit. Where the gap is wide is after the top 50 women players or so as evidenced by UConn trouncing everybody by 40 points a game. The "just below elite" D1 women's players (but still play at relatively top schools) are probably equivalent to some high school level, but I think Breanna and a few others are significantly higher (clearly they're significantly above their female competitors). Basically, the depth in the women's game is nowhere close to the men's but the top women are mighty impressive in my opinion (but not competing at NBA level impressive).

[fraggler]

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.

[UrinalCake]

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.

[fraggler]

Waited to long to edit my post, but I think somewhere in between 6 and 7 would be fair.

[westwall]

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.

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.

[johnb]

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.

Tennis is probably a similar argument. An elite pro female tennis player can't win against an elite male tennis player (and a top 150 is elite). And it wouldn't be especially close. If one of the Williams sisters were to play the average hs male tennis player, however, the women win. I was a decent tennis player in high school, and there were some local girls who could easily beat me (they were top 10 in the country in 18's, but neither ended up being a pro star). Otoh, I played my niece when she was #1 on her mediocre high school team, and I was an old man who hadn't played in a year, and I won easily. I don't know how the really elite women would fare against the various ranks of college players, but I'm guessing Serena could play for the same teams as Breanna--lower level DIII.

I don't think relative quality relates to relative paycheck size, however. Shouldn't that relate to profits? Male gymnastics and figure skating are a lot more athletic than the women's versions, but I'd assume the Olympics will focus on the girls. If these were major sports, I'd guess the girls would get paid more.

[dukelifer]

I am pretty sure she could play at the D3 level in a limited role and be a spot shooter. Not so sure about starting. She might struggle defensively as the strength difference would be large- particularly for her. But a good coach could figure out how to use her in games.

[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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm9iZnqGMvY

[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/its-the-breanna-stewart-era-in-college-basketball/

somebody else claiming she is the best women's player ever, and that was 2 years ago.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67450458/uconns-breanna-stewart-best-womens-basketball-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! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)) 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! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)) 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.

[jimsumner]

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.

True. Then again, FloJo never again came close to that time and there is some feeling that it was wind-aided. But yes, she would have been competitive in D-3.

Danica Patrick might be the most successful woman competing against men. But what percentage of a motor-sport race is a variable of the machine, the crew and the driver?

Some experts think women might eventually catch men in ultra-marathon spots, a 24-hour run or some such, based on the fact that fit women store more fat reserves than comparably fit men.(Be real careful how you phrase this :)). But it hasn't happened yet and may never.

[BLPOG]

True. Then again, FloJo never again came close to that time and there is some feeling that it was wind-aided. But yes, she would have been competitive in D-3.

Danica Patrick might be the most successful woman competing against men. But what percentage of a motor-sport race is a variable of the machine, the crew and the driver?

Some experts think women might eventually catch men in ultra-marathon spots, a 24-hour run or some such, based on the fact that fit women store more fat reserves than comparably fit men.(Be real careful how you phrase this :)). But it hasn't happened yet and may never.

I believe there is one endurance sport at which women actual can compete at the same level (and even exceed) men - distance swimming. For exactly the reason you mentioned (higher body fat percentage), women are more buoyant in water and have to expend less energy to stay afloat, giving them a relative advantage. I don't have any examples handy, but maybe some other folks with a bit more swimming knowledge can comment?

[phaedrus]

I believe there is one endurance sport at which women actual can compete at the same level (and even exceed) men - distance swimming. For exactly the reason you mentioned (higher body fat percentage), women are more buoyant in water and have to expend less energy to stay afloat, giving them a relative advantage. I don't have any examples handy, but maybe some other folks with a bit more swimming knowledge can comment?

Even over more "normal" distances, the gap between men and women narrows as the distance increases. Paula Radcliffe's marathon world record (2:15) is not world class for men, but it's pretty close.

[CDu]

Even over more "normal" distances, the gap between men and women narrows as the distance increases. Paula Radcliffe's marathon world record (2:15) is not world class for men, but it's pretty close.

Technically, the gender gap in world records in the 100m is tighter (men's time is 92% of the women's time) than the gap between the world records in the marathon (men's time is 90% of that of the women's time).

[PackMan97]

Technically, the gender gap in world records in the 100m is tighter (men's time is 92% of the women's time) than the gap between the world records in the marathon (men's time is 90% of that of the women's time).

Or you could look at the fact that in the 100m here are the winning times....

Men: 9.633
Women: 10.75s

Only three men in the first round ran over a 10.75s. In the semifinals the slowest was a 10.31. In the finals it was a 9.98 (although technically, one guy ran an 11+ but he injured himself in the race).

So, the women's time isn't even close to being competitive on the men's side and would BARELY JUST BARELY get you into the olympics as the next to last runner.

[UrinalCake]

From what I've read, when you start moving into ultramarathon distances (the crazy people who run 50- and 100-mile races) the gap between men and women not only diminishes but in some cases the women are actually faster and hold the world records. Nobody can quite explain this phenomenon, whether it has to do with having a lower center of gravity, less body weight, higher pain tolerance, or some other factor.

With regards to Riggs vs. King, I've read conflicting reports. One story claimed that that King was allowed to hit into the doubles lanes and that Riggs was only given one attempt per serve (i.e. no faults). But another story I read claimed this was completely untrue and that they played by standard rules for both. It seems pretty agreed upon that Riggs was not a very good men's player, he was a hustler and a showman and challenged King for the publicity, but was certainly not a top men's player and as others have stated he was pretty old when the event took place.

Perhaps a better analysis could be made from mixed doubles. You could look at points won or lost when the male partner is serving or receiving versus the female partner. I have to say, I played a little bit of mixed doubles in high school and felt like I had to be a complete jerk. The coaches pretty much tell you that your entire strategy is to hit the ball to the girl every time because you assume she's not as good, which wasn't always the case.

[Indoor66]

From what I've read, when you start moving into ultramarathon distances (the crazy people who run 50- and 100-mile races) the gap between men and women not only diminishes but in some cases the women are actually faster and hold the world records. Nobody can quite explain this phenomenon, whether it has to do with having a lower center of gravity, less body weight, higher pain tolerance, or some other factor.

With regards to Riggs vs. King, I've read conflicting reports. One story claimed that that King was allowed to hit into the doubles lanes and that Riggs was only given one attempt per serve (i.e. no faults). But another story I read claimed this was completely untrue and that they played by standard rules for both. It seems pretty agreed upon that Riggs was not a very good men's player, he was a hustler and a showman and challenged King for the publicity, but was certainly not a top men's player and as others have stated he was pretty old when the event took place.

Perhaps a better analysis could be made from mixed doubles. You could look at points won or lost when the male partner is serving or receiving versus the female partner. I have to say, I played a little bit of mixed doubles in high school and felt like I had to be a complete jerk. The coaches pretty much tell you that your entire strategy is to hit the ball to the girl every time because you assume she's not as good, which wasn't always the case.

Riggs was a very good tennis player in his time. According to Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)) (that I cited above) : "Bobby Riggs had been one of the world's top tennis players in the 1940s; he once held the number 1 ranking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings) and had won six major titles during his career. After he retired from professional tennis in 1951, Riggs remained a master promoter of himself and of tennis.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29#cite_note-1) In 1973, he opined that the female game was inferior and that even at his current age of 55 he could still beat any of the top female players.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29#cite_note-Time-2)" (Emphasis added) By the time he met King he was over the hill.

[johnb]

Okay, here's an article that documents that, for most world class records, women tend to perform at 90% of the level of men. Ie, men's records for running, swimming, etc, are 10% faster than women's records. One explanation is hemoglobin level, though I'd assume that muscle mass plays a role.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/we-thought-female-athletes-were-catching-up-to-men-but-theyre-not/260927/

From a different article:
"Larger gaps occur in throwing and pure explosion events. In the long jump, women are 19 percent behind men. The gap in distance swimming races is smaller — 6 percent in the 800-meter freestyle.

Thanks in large part to testosterone, men are generally heavier and taller than women. They have longer limbs relative to their height, bigger hearts and lungs, less fat, denser bones, more oxygen-carrying red blood cells, heavier skeletons that support more muscle — 80 percent more in the upper body, on average, which is about the difference between male and female gorillas — and narrower hips that make for more efficient running and decrease the chance of injury. But since these differences generally don’t appear until puberty, boys’ and girls’ records in track tend to be identical before age 10. There’s scant biological reason to separate young boys and girls in competitions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-much-do-sex-differences-matter-in-sports/2014/02/07/563b86a4-8ed9-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

Some sport comparisons. The article describes how varying rules sometimes allow women to play to their strengths--or are just anachronisms:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/29242699

One reason that I have been arguing that elite women can successfully compete against semi-elite men is that I have a daughter, and she is a rugged 6 year old who I hope can beat down her male peers as she gets older. Another reason is that I really believe that elite women can happily compete against semi elite men and that semi elite women can hold their own against semi elite men

The woman who works in the adjacent office can run a 3:10 marathon. Not world class, but definitely faster than anyone else I know. I'm good at tennis, but I know multiple women who could deftly frustrate my relatively dominant serve and volley.

In a different world, I already know that women are, generally speaking, far more deft when it comes to interpersonal subtlety, though I don't know of a sport that scores people on empathy and kindness.

[-jk]

I can offer an anecdote (being the singular of "data"): my daughter runs HS cross country - they run a 5K. She's solid, number 12 or so on her team of 50 girls; alas, only the top 7 run the tourneys. Our girls won the 4A (highest level) state championship the last two years here in MD. Coincidentally, the guys came in sixth in states both years.

Our best girl this year, a WaPost All-Met runner (and the Post covers a lot of high schools!) often trains with the boys. She came in second overall in the states. By comparative time, she would have finished 130th in the boys. The winning girl (who crushed Abbey by 30 seconds) couldn't quite crack the top 100 boys.

-jk

[sagegrouse]

I believe there is one endurance sport at which women actual can compete at the same level (and even exceed) men - distance swimming. For exactly the reason you mentioned (higher body fat percentage), women are more buoyant in water and have to expend less energy to stay afloat, giving them a relative advantage. I don't have any examples handy, but maybe some other folks with a bit more swimming knowledge can comment?

You got it! Here's the lead paragraph from an article on Active.com (http://www.active.com/swimming/articles/men-vs-women-in-endurance-sports):


Based on preliminary comparative research findings by Open Water Source, it was found that women compete very well against men—and many times better than them—in the open water swimming world. In fact, it appears that open water swimming is unique among the world's various athletic competitions. In particular, in the marathon swimming world, not only are women holding their own against their male counterparts, but they are also waiting on shore for the men to finish.

The article points out that average times of women in distance swimming races are often better than the average time of men participants. At the Olympic and professional level, however, the men are superior. Also, the average age of women in, for example, the swim around Manhattan is younger by a few years than the average age of the men.

[DU82]

Riggs was a very good tennis player in his time. According to Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)) (that I cited above) : "Bobby Riggs had been one of the world's top tennis players in the 1940s; he once held the number 1 ranking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings) and had won six major titles during his career. After he retired from professional tennis in 1951, Riggs remained a master promoter of himself and of tennis.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29#cite_note-1) In 1973, he opined that the female game was inferior and that even at his current age of 55 he could still beat any of the top female players.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29#cite_note-Time-2)" (Emphasis added) By the time he met King he was over the hill.

Remember that he beat Margaret Smith Court 6-2, 6-1 before playing King. (King originally declined to play him, but agreed after he beat Court, and I'm sure money was promised.) Court at the time was the ranked number 1, having won three of the four previous Grand Slam events. IIRC, no special rules were used. (I remember watching the Riggs-King match, not sure about the Court match.) What some people may remember and confuse details with the Riggs stunts is that about twenty years later, Jimmy Connors (age 40) played Martina Navratilova (35), and the "special rules" cited in previous messages were in play here (Connors only got one serve, and Navratilova could hit into the doubles court.) Even so, Connors won 7-5, 6-2.

[House P]

True. Then again, FloJo never again came close to that time and there is some feeling that it was wind-aided. But yes, she would have been competitive in D-3.

The upcoming Olympic trials got me thinking about this thread. This, in turn, got me to waste some time looking up how the top NCAA D1 women's track and field performances in 2016 would compare to the top men’s performances. While the top women wouldn't be particularly competitive vs D1 men, in most cases the top D1 woman’s performance would put her among the top 100-200 D3 men. Considering that there are almost 300 D3 schools with track programs, this means that, the top D1 women would likely be the top performer in many events for an average men’s D3 team.

It appears that women would be most competitive in the sprinting and jumping events, but would struggle most to compete in the mid distance events.

Perhaps the most impressive result in 2016 was posted in the triple jump by Kentura Orji of Georgia. In the NCAA championships, Orji set the all-time US women's record with a jump of 14.53 meters (47 feet 8 inches). Only 11 D3 men and 213 D1 men jumped better than this in 2016. Earlier this year, Orji also had a wind-aided jump of 14.6 meters. According to goduke.com (http://www1.nmnathletics.com/fls/4200/web-docs/All-Time%20Records.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=4200), only two Duke men have ever triple jumped more than 14.4 meters. So I have no doubt that nearly every D3 men's track team (and many D1 men's track teams) would be happy to have Orji as their "starting" triple jumper. Will be interesting to see how she does in Rio. The US men have historically dominated the triple jump, but no US woman has ever finished better than 10th in the Olympics. Orji's 14.53 meter jump would have been good enough for 5th at the London games, so she has an outside chance at a medal in Rio.

Here's a table considering the top D1 women in 2016 to the top D1 and D3 men.





Event
2016 Women's NCAA D1 Top Result
School
Result
Rank vs D3 men
Rank vs D1 Men


100m
Ariana Washington
Oregon
10.95
129
>500


200m
Felicia Brown
Tenn
22.19
161
>500


400m
Courtney Okolo
Texas
49.71
167
>500


800m
Raevyn Rogers
Oregon
02:00.8
>500
>500


1500m
Marta Freitas
Miss St
04:09.5
>500
>500


5000m
Dominique Scott
Arkansas
15:25.1
298
>500


10000m
Dominique Scott
Arkansas
31:56.8
108
>500


High Jump
Akela Jones
Kansas St
1.95m
70
>500


Pole Vault
Alexis Weeks
Arkansas
4.64m
43
>500


Long Jump
Quanesha Burks
Alabama
6.77m
91
>500


Triple Jump
Keturah Orji
Georgia
14.53m
12
214





Now, I am not sure how this translates to basketball. But, if the best D1 women's track athletes would be competitive against the top 150 or so D3 men, I wouldn't be surprised if the single best women's college basketball player (ever?) could find a way to contribute for a whole bunch of D3 men's teams. This is especially true if the player was 6'4" with a 7'1” wingspan, a good 3pt shot, and a strong dedication to practice. While I’d expect almost all D3 men’s players with similar height to be stronger and/or more athletic, I doubt many have a 7’1” wingspan and a reliable 3 pt shot.

In terms of athletic skills, here is a trivia question.

What do Kyle Singler, Mike Dunleavy, Tyus Jones, Loul Deng, Josh McRoberts, Andre Dawkins, Nolan Smith, and Rodney Hood have in common with Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard, and Steph Curry?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Answer:

According to nbadraftexpress.com (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/), all these players were measured to have a worse “no step vertical jump” and “agility test” than Sean May!?!?


In fairness, Sean May’s measured results* exceed his perceived athleticism. His 30 inch vertical jump is slightly above the 28.5 inch median of the results listed on nbadraftexpress.com, while his 11.04 second agility test time somehow puts him in the top 25%.

Even still, some successful players have had unimpressive results in these categories.

- Durant’s 26” vertical jump puts him in the bottom 25% of all players in the database, while his 12.33 sec agility test puts him in the bottom 15%.

- Kawhi’s agilty test was average, but his 25.5” vertical was in the bottom 25%.

- Singler and Dunleavy both had average-to-slightly-above-average agility tests, but their vertical jumps (23” for Singler and 24.5” for Dunleavy) were in the bottom 10% and 15%, respectively.

- Finally, Tyus’ vertical and agility measurements were both in the bottom third of all players and would probably be even worse if only point guards were considered.

Of course, we already knew from Doug Gottlieb that “alarmingly unathletic” players can go on to accomplish great things.

#############

*Possible explanations for May’s unexpectedly strong pre-draft test results: a) someone put a peanut buster parfait at the end of the agility course, and/or b) Deborah Crowder graded the pre-draft tests.