PDA

View Full Version : Can a woman beat a man in swimming?



TheGoodSmith
August 8th, 2005, 03:54 PM
With the advent of Libby Lenton's 51.91 WR in the 100m free. I propose a swim off and battle of the sexes.


Paul "the evil" Smith (45) representing Bobby Riggs

vs.

Libby Lenton (20) as Billie Jean King.


My money rests on the female.


John Smith

gull
August 8th, 2005, 05:42 PM
"With the posting of that photo.... I feel this thread is rather deteriorating quickly."

Glad to see you taking the high road with this thread.

jswim
August 8th, 2005, 06:21 PM
D'OH!

;)

tjrpatt
August 8th, 2005, 07:59 PM
Sure, I remember when I was young and I couldn't beat some of the girls on my age group team and I wasn't a B and C time swimmer either. These girls were pretty talented.

Allen Stark
August 8th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Come on, you can go to any Masters Meet and see younger women beating older men. Sometimes you see older women beating younger men. The egalitarian attitude is one of the great things about swimming. If I had my way colleges wouldn't have mens and womens teams just swim teams with mixed relays at every meet. I really want mixed relays at the Olympics and Worlds!

Phil Arcuni
August 8th, 2005, 09:51 PM
Interesting that this is the thread that John started after the last one, since I think this is the reason that boys swimming (you will see in a moment why I call it 'boys' swimming) is in trouble.

Society did (does) not have gender-typed occupations and sports to protect the women. Instead, it was to protect the fragile male ego. Bluntly, boys do not like to be shown up by girls. In fact, they do not even want to participate in something where girls even have the possibility of being equal or better. In fact, boys will actively *not* participate in activities that have girls as equals.

There is a long history of this. Look at many formerly boy-dominated occupations, such as nursing, secretarial, or elementary school teaching. Women start to participate, they are good, and the boys leave.

Notice that the occupations I listed now have the presumption, by boys, as 'gay.' Not only won't they compete, but it is not 'manly' to compete.

The same thing is happening in swimming, which, as Allen says, is an extremely egalitarian sport. Boys and girls participate in the same meets, practice in the same pools, swim the same events, and practice the same sets. Boys know that there are girls out there that are faster than they are, and by some Freudian trickery know that only 'fags' would swim.

I saw it back in the seventies as women became more integrated into the sport, I saw it in the hostility toward the women's team in my college, and I see it in my son's high school. Skimpy swim suits just provide an excuse.

I'm happy to swim with men that don't mind if a woman leads the lane -- I think masters swimmers are more mature than most athletes. I remember a comment from a sports psychologist -- swimming takes its women swimmers more seriously as athletes than other sports, such as basketball, cycling, or track.

However, you want controversial? Don't try to change male nature. Instead, separate the workouts, separate the meets, create different strokes and different events, and *then* you might save boys swimming.

TheGoodSmith
August 8th, 2005, 11:08 PM
Phil,

Dude...... your over thinking this one by a mile.



John Smith

Phil Arcuni
August 9th, 2005, 12:46 AM
Oh, that's me: think - think - think, and I always end up at the same wall . . .

Wrong thread, I guess. Should have posted in the more serious thread you started.

But, related to the subject of this thread, *and* my post, why don't *you* swim against Ms. Lenton, instead of setting up the older Smith for failure? Huh, boy? ;)

aquageek
August 9th, 2005, 06:06 AM
In another thread someone said boys swimming is declining because of homophobia about wearing speedos yet provided no proof of this assertion. Now we get some nutcake statement that boys swimming is declining due to boys being afraid to lose to girls. Where's the prooof? Show evidence of this assertion unless this is simply your observation.

kernow
August 9th, 2005, 07:18 AM
"There is a long history of this. Look at many formerly boy-dominated occupations, such as nursing, secretarial, or elementary school teaching. Women start to participate, they are good, and the boys leave.

Notice that the occupations I listed now have the presumption, by boys, as 'gay.' Not only won't they compete, but it is not 'manly' to compete."

This is extremely true. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the office was originally seen as the new frontier for men, with the market place serving as a new arena in which 'Men' could aggressively compete against one another. The office place- in literature, anyway- was then represented as having been emascualated with the arrival of female employees, and therefore no longer the appropriate realm of real men (that was re-located to the manager's office, the country clubs and boxing gyms)...

Or something like that.

BTW- I swim on a predominately gay swim team, and honey, those men are fierce competitors.
:p

justforfun
August 9th, 2005, 10:02 AM
Short course (100 or less) I'll take either Smith. Long course (100 or more) I'll take any female Aussie sprinter...Lenton, Henry, or Mills.

TheGoodSmith
August 9th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Phil,

I don't own the 50 or 100 free records in my age group. Wouldn't you rather watch "the evil" Smith in this unlikely dual?

As for women and mens teams training individually...... It can work either way. USS teams typically combine them and college teams typically separate them. Training for women, including taper, can be different, so there may not be as many reasons for combined training as there are opposed to combined training. I don't know that it hurts or helps the mens or womens team by training together. My suspicion is that it is probably more beneficial for a women to train with a faster male counterpart than vica versa. It's also probably more beneficial for male sprinters (200and below) to train with other men closer to their relative speed than with women. Distance event training may be a different story.

In the end, it's all about yardage, pain and brain drain. Doesn't really matter who's in your lane. I've done it both ways. You have to get through it regardless.


John Smith

Frank Thompson
August 9th, 2005, 10:44 AM
What is the point of this thread? I don't want to sound irritating but are you trying to stir up controversy? First it was picking on the triathletes and then it was the doom of USA Men's swimming. John, can't you start a thread of a positive nature.

So out of this do we say that Rich Abrahams, age 60 can beat Kara Lynn Joyce in the 50 Yard Free? Anything is possible.

FindingMyInnerFish
August 9th, 2005, 11:17 AM
They have a version of this argument in the running forums--and guys who run have had cars go by w/ the beer drinking crowd throwing bottles and calling them "fag." Maybe any individual pursuit where men and women can enter the same events, train together, etc., can provoke suspicion among the homophobic. Women athletes have had to deal w/ the labels too--to the extent that perhaps for a long time, girls were intimidated fr/ taking part in sports at all. The deeper issue is why should we be so judgmental about someone being gay to begin with? My 50something self doesn't care much if someone says I'm gay--b/c such a person is ignorant if s/he judges me or anyone by a gender orientation. It's harder for kids, especially around adolescence when peers can be cruel. But I think that adults need to model tolerance and help kids become more accepting of diversity, not insulate them from it.

America has deified athletes in the big-time team sports such as football, baseball, and basketball--any participation by women tends to be reduced to a side-show. I'm not so sure I'd want this to happen in either running or swimming.

As for women competing with men--one interesting point: in very long distance running events, often women can outperform men. A woman won the Badwater race outright twice--this is a 135-mile footrace from Death Valley to Mt. Whitney. Women have been in the top five in the 100-mile Western States race. The theory seems to be that women's potential in endurance sports has only just begun to be evident. Yet men still compete and I don't see any sign of their leaving the sport b/c of women joining the events.

knelson
August 9th, 2005, 11:46 AM
I think it would be very close, but I'd take Lenton by a hair. Paul could probably kick her butt in a 50, though.

jswim
August 9th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Allen Stark
Come on, you can go to any Masters Meet and see younger women beating older men. Sometimes you see older women beating younger men. The egalitarian attitude is one of the great things about swimming. If I had my way colleges wouldn't have mens and womens teams just swim teams with mixed relays at every meet. I really want mixed relays at the Olympics and Worlds!

Yes.. I would LOVE to see mixed relays at the Olympics and Worlds!! How fun!

jswim
August 9th, 2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by FindingMyInnerFish
My 50something self doesn't care much if someone says I'm gay--b/c such a person is ignorant if s/he judges me or anyone by a gender orientation. It's harder for kids, especially around adolescence when peers can be cruel. But I think that adults need to model tolerance and help kids become more accepting of diversity, not insulate them from it.


I wish more people in this world were as mature as this!
How True! You hit it on the head, descrimination against people for their gender orientation, looking different, etc.. is extremely childish behavior!
well stated. :)

This in itself is a testament to swimming and why everyone should admire it as the ultimate sport!.. how mature and cool all swimmers are! ah haaaaa!;)

TheGoodSmith
August 9th, 2005, 12:48 PM
Frank Thompson,

You bring up an interesting dual.... Rich Abrahams in the 50 free age 60 against a collegiate female in her 20s.

I like this one even better. The spread of 40 years vs. the male female factor....... yes...... this is a good one. Except, Rich is too nice to play the Bobby Riggs persona. We'd have to switch it out and find a meaner Amy Van Dyken figure for the women.... :-)


John Smith

seltzer
August 9th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
[B]In another thread someone said boys swimming is declining because of homophobia about wearing speedos yet provided no proof of this assertion.

I wouldn't cite "homophobia" but there is evidence that boy do feel more comfortable in jammers versus "speedos". In New England, boy participation in HS swim meet increased with the popularity of jammers. When I spoke to several people involved in MA high school swimming they confirmed their belief that jammers made swimming more "comfortable" for boys.

On an different tangent...at the 2005 NE LCM Open we had more heats of boys versus girls for most events. Most of the swimmers were 15+ but we did also have a fair number of 13-14 years old (and 1 12 year old girl who did a 2:16 for a 200 meter back!).

Finally, it is true that in smaller meets with younger kids far more girls than boys. One other reason, in my opinion, is that boys mature much later than girls and are really not ready to compete at younger ages. Summer rec leagues or some other kind of water activities are probably more appropriate for most boys until they get older (11?).

aquageek
August 9th, 2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by seltzer
I wouldn't cite "homophobia" but there is evidence that boy do feel more comfortable in jammers versus "speedos". In New England, boy participation in HS swim meet increased with the popularity of jammers. When I spoke to several people involved in MA high school swimming they confirmed their belief that jammers made swimming more "comfortable" for boys.


Nicely stated and I concur. My daughter's team doesn't even offer speedo briefs for the boys, it's all jammers. Some of the high school "ringers" will show up for a summer league meet in the traditional speedo but them promptly put a pair of baggies on after the heat.

Guvnah
August 9th, 2005, 01:43 PM
It takes a real man to wear a pink speedo. Even a powder-blue one.

knelson
August 9th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by seltzer
Finally, it is true that in smaller meets with younger kids far more girls than boys. One other reason, in my opinion, is that boys mature much later than girls and are really not ready to compete at younger ages. Summer rec leagues or some other kind of water activities are probably more appropriate for most boys until they get older (11?).

I don't think this is the reason. I think boys and girls are equally "ready" to compete at young ages. I would postulate that more girls drop out of the sport than boys when they hit their teenage years and that's why there are comparitively more girls than boys in the lower age groups.

Frank Thompson
August 13th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Mr Goodsmith:

It looked like Rich Abrahams came pretty close to Kara Lynn Joyce in the 50 Free. His time of :25.54 against hers at Montreal at :25.36. What is interesting is that he would have beat the 8th place women from Montreal WC. That time was :25.56. When he does the 50 Fly we will see if he can place in that as well.

newmastersswimmer
August 13th, 2005, 11:22 AM
This in itself is a testament to swimming and why everyone should admire it as the ultimate sport!.. how mature and cool all swimmers are! ah haaaaa! originally posted by jswim


Let's not forget who started this thread now (and other similar type threads here) ....LOL!!!


Newmastersswimmer

FindingMyInnerFish
August 13th, 2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by jswim
I wish more people in this world were as mature as this!
How True! You hit it on the head, descrimination against people for their gender orientation, looking different, etc.. is extremely childish behavior!
well stated. :)

This in itself is a testament to swimming and why everyone should admire it as the ultimate sport!.. how mature and cool all swimmers are! ah haaaaa!;)

Hey thanks! Also nice quote!

I sometimes can beat guys in swimming.... generally the guy who sort of half breaststrokes/half walks his way across the pool... sometimes the guy who slaps the water as if it's his enemy... sometimes the guy who sort of floats down the pool using a snorkel.... the serious swimmers--guy dept....nowhere near! But I did manage to graduate from slowest to second slowest person in my masters' group by about late May. (Since then, we've been on our own while the coach is away for the summer.) One thing I noticed: our group is (not by design) exclusively female. There was a guy, but he hurt his shoulder and had to stop--and another who was there just a couple of times. Not a lot of chances to test myself against guys, but I'm not thinking that would be a close race anyway. ;) But some of the women in that group could definitely battle it out w/ the guys.

TheGoodSmith
August 14th, 2005, 10:12 PM
Yes.... you suggestion that Rich swim against a younger female in the 50 free is an excellent choice for this Bobby Riggs/Billy Jean King battle of the sexes. They are well matched despite the 40 years of age difference.

Newsmasters swimmer..... better to have a good vibrant subject to throw around. Keeps the forum interesting.... :-)


John Smith

Frank Thompson
August 15th, 2005, 02:05 PM
Well Mr. Goodsmith, Rich Abrahams came up short against the women. His :27.92 WR in the 60-64 age group would have gotten 29th in the Women's 50 Fly at the WC in Montreal. The 16th place time in the consolation heat was :27.52 and the 8th place time was :27.23. I notice that Rich's seed time was :27.50 so maybe he was a little off or the Women's 50 Fly was more competitive and better than the 50 Free.

Your quote "better to have good vibrant subject to throw around. Keeps the forum Interesting". I don't know about this. Why you just set the record for having the fastest thread closed with only 3 postings. The only reason I know this is because I had a nice post response to that thread and then when I was done and submitted the reply it came back CLOSED. All that time wasted for nothing.

Locked out posts are bad because you will be in the race for the most annoying USMS poster and you don't want that. I have been party to a couple of them, but there is 1 person that been a party to everyone but 1 and now 2 with yours.

TheGoodSmith
August 15th, 2005, 02:15 PM
Well,

I closed the post that my wife started as it was confusing people. She opened it under our PC at home and it looked like I was opening it. Then when I replied to it, it looked even more confusing. I thought if she opened it up again under her own ID it would make more sense.

I'll be glad to reopen it if you think it doesn't matter or isn't confusing.

As for Rich's swims. I will talk to him eventually and find out how he felt about them. Certainly impressive.


John Smith

Frank Thompson
August 15th, 2005, 02:23 PM
Mr Goodsmith:

That is good news. No you don't have to open again. I thought it was closed because of the Man vs Women question.

jswim
August 15th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Well,

I closed the post that my wife started as it was confusing people. She opened it under our PC at home and it looked like I was opening it. Then when I replied to it, it looked even more confusing. I thought if she opened it up again under her own ID it would make more sense.

John Smith

whew!.. I thought perhaps a trip to the psychiatrist was needed. ;) Good to know there was actually another person behind the posts.. and not just a case of split personality.

mattson
August 16th, 2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
I closed the post that my wife started as it was confusing people. She opened it under our PC at home and it looked like I was opening it. Then when I replied to it, it looked even more confusing. I thought if she opened it up again under her own ID it would make more sense.

Mr. Moose sometimes posted under someone else's name, so it is not unusual. I suggest having her use her "name" as a signature (at the end of the post), rather than as a topic title, should make it clearer in the future. (Unless she gets her own account.)

newmastersswimmer
August 17th, 2005, 04:06 PM
Newsmasters swimmer..... better to have a good vibrant subject to throw around. Keeps the forum interesting.... :-)
originally posted by the goodsmith


Yes the subjects have been very vibrant.......I never get offended by a good debate either. .....I just felt like poking a little fun at you while I had the opportunity.....It's the ex-longhorn thing I guess.


Newmastersswimmer

TheGoodSmith
August 18th, 2005, 10:37 AM
Newsmasters swimmer:

Why don't you start a new controversial thread.... say something like........... Title 9 and the demise of mens' collegiate swimming. That'll get the blood flowing on the forum..... :-)


John Smith

TheGoodSmith
August 18th, 2005, 10:37 AM
Newsmasters swimmer:

Then again..... maybe not.

John Smith

newmastersswimmer
August 18th, 2005, 12:41 PM
Yaeh......that thread may be a little too touchy.....even by your standards ....LOL!


Newmastersswimmer


p.s. Thing is I have basically agreed with your viewpoints on most of those semi-controversial threads you started....especially the one about foreign swimmers taking away scholarship opportunities from Americans......Not to bring that whole argument up again .....(just an example where we both saw it eye to eye).....that argument was brutal enough over in the other thread.

craiglll@yahoo.com
November 15th, 2005, 03:53 PM
I went looking for this forum because while I wa in DC this past weekend, I "ran" into a woman who used to always say that some day a woman, very soon, a woman would run a marathon faster than a man. She used to say this in the mid 1980s. It hasn't happened.

Now I'm even more sure that it won't. I don't think that a woman will ever beat a man at the same distance inthe same age group ( except maybe in really young age group swimmign).

SwiminONandON
November 15th, 2005, 04:12 PM
In ultra marathons and other ridiculously long races the women beat the me ... it's the extra fat stores ... I'm serious!

knelson
November 15th, 2005, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by SwiminONandON
In ultra marathons and other ridiculously long races the women beat the me ... it's the extra fat stores ... I'm serious!

You sure about that? I just looked at the results for some of the famous ultramarathons (Hardrock, Western States, Wasatch) and the fastest man was always faster than the fastest woman--usually by a couple hours.

90 or bust
November 16th, 2005, 08:07 AM
When Paula Radcliffe set her world record at the London Marathon 2003, she was the fastest British runner, male or female.

Admittedly a few men of other nationalities did beat her but she came 15th overall. Her time of 2hr15min was the male male world record in about 1960.

TheGoodSmith
November 16th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Interesting..... are you saying that women are catching men and will pass them eventually, or do you believe there is an eventual ceiling for women before they hit the best man's time?


John Smith

Hawaiiwoman
November 17th, 2005, 12:12 AM
OKÖIím going to jump in here. Iím probably going to piss off some women and a few men, but itís pretty clear than women are not going to ďcatch men and pass themĒ when it comes to athletic events that rely on muscle. The bottom line is that we (women) do not carry as much muscle as men. Now there are a few women who will beat most men in many events. Exceptional training and fairly high levels of testosterone (for a woman) will pay off. But at the elite level, I believe that menís ability to lay on muscle will prevail. Lengthy endurance events may be another story. There seems to be some advantage to having extra fat stores, but the jury is still out on this issue.

I do want to stress that this does not mean that men are superior to women. Heck, 21 second versus 23 second does not mean much in the scheme of things. Unless youíre a sprinter!!! :D

90 or bust
November 17th, 2005, 04:06 AM
To JS: I think I'd agree with the theme of what Hawaiiwoman is saying in the sense that, all other things being equal, men will beat women in athletic events. However, the differences are becoming smaller (see graph on the following link for marathon times)

http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/index.cfm


With the narrow difference, when you have a situation like that with Paula Radcliffe, of an exceptionally talented woman against less talented men (and this could happen on an international scale) then the woman could win.

knelson
November 17th, 2005, 10:47 AM
This whole topic got me thinking about women in endurance sports. Something I find a little strange is how little you hear about women's cycling. The Tour de France is big news these days, but I hear nothing about any of the women's events. Maybe we just need a "female Lance Armstrong" to emerge?

It's also obvious that women aren't quite there yet in terms of challenging the elite men or else we'd be seeing women on some of the the Tour teams.

MichiganHusker
November 19th, 2005, 03:05 PM
I know it is not PC, but let's get real. There are not enough women to make these sports as competitive as the men's version

WNBA? Boring and dull. I would much rather watch Ben Wallace block a shot for the Pistons.

LPGA? Yea right. There is the 1 teen phenom (the female version of Tiger) but honestly, it just is not the same as the fist punching Tiger.

Softball? It creeps me out watching.

Football? Ahhh, 'nuff said.

When the Olympics come around every 4 years, it is really exciting because we get to see elite women athletes in sporting events where it is better to watch women or doesn't matter. What we really need is for ABC to bring back Wide World of Sports. Then we would be able to follow the women athletes.

Bottom line - there is no money in women's athletics. It is sad but true. When's the last time you got to see Nebraska's Women's Volleyball Team. They are awesome and have dominated the sport for several years.

Sam Perry
November 19th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by MichiganHusker
I know it is not PC, but let's get real. There are not enough women to make these sports as competitive as the men's version...

...Bottom line - there is no money in women's athletics.

Great quote, and unfortunately you are right on most counts. A few sports I would throw out to you that I think are more interesting in Women's rather than men's:

Tennis
Gymnastics (If they are older than 16, the young ones "Creep me out" also)
Figure Skating
Diving (Could be a toss up here)

I'm sure there are a few others that I am forgetting right now. But I guess you might say the more "Finesse" sports are better spectated with women rather than men. I know tennis is not "Finesse", but men's tennis is completely boring today compared to Pete vs. Andre or Ivan vs. Jimmy.

P.S. Women are much more fun to watch in other "sports" but I don't even want to mention those here, totally unappropriate! :D

knelson
November 19th, 2005, 10:22 PM
My wife figure skates, so she really follows the competitions. In a figure skating event today (ISU Grand Prix, so comparable to the World Cup series in swimming, i.e. the top level competitors are involved) a female Japanese skater landed two triple axels in her program and only a couple of the male competitors even landed one.

MichiganHusker
November 20th, 2005, 01:12 AM
I totally agree that there are some sports where it is just better to watch women. I cannot stand men's gymnastics. It creeps me out just as much as women's softball.

Women's figure skating is by far better then men's as far as enjoyment and beauty.

It's just that why do the feminists always insist that whatever men can do, women can too? I just think some sports are better left to men and some other sports are better left to the women. Syncro Swimming is another example. Can't imagine ever wanting to see men compete.

Sam Perry
November 20th, 2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by MichiganHusker
Syncro Swimming is another example. Can't imagine ever wanting to see men compete.

Do any of you ever remember the old SNL skit with Martin Short and Harry Shearer trying to the the first Men's Synchro Team? Absolutely hilarious!

I completely agree with the question of people trying to make things equal. I don't for the life of me understand why we have "evolved" to think men and women are alike. We are different! One is not bettter than the other, we just have different strengths and weaknesses. I know women over history make less, don't advance as easy as men, etc. and things need to be corrected somhow so this does not continue to happen (which I believe has changed immensly in the past 20 years). But why do men's sports have to suffer (i.e. Title IX) to make things "equal"?

MichiganHusker
November 20th, 2005, 11:12 AM
When I was a Flight Attendant, I had a layover in Philadelphia. We used to stay in this Howard Johnson's that had a swimming pool in the basement of the hotel. No windows and not exactly easy access.

Anyway, a fellow Flight Attendant friend and I decided to go swimming. No one else was in the pool and due to its location, we didn't think anyone was watching so we started "re-enacting" the Howard Short/Harry Shearer synchro act as well as sort of making up our own funny little water ballerina moves. Nothing pornographic or anything, just good clean fun.

Well, little did we know that the entire front desk was watching us on the security cameras. Apparently we were so funny to watch that just about every employee in the area (all men) were watching us.

When we came up from the pool, we had to walk by the front desk and they all lifted up "scoring cards" 10, 9.5, 6.5, etc.

It was really funny since we had absolutely no idea anyone was watching.

Needless to say, I became quite infamous at that Hotel during the rest of my gig as a Flight Attendant. :p

Hawaiiwoman
November 21st, 2005, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by MichiganHusker

I just think some sports are better left to men and some other sports are better left to the women.

Hmmmm....have to disagree here. I DO believe in equal access, I just think it is unrealistic to think that performance will be equal at the top, for the reasons I suggested earlier.

If we are going to leave some sports to men and some other sports to women, who gets to decide? What if the "deciders" say that women swimmers "creep" them out......no more swimming for women?

craiglll@yahoo.com
November 21st, 2005, 11:56 AM
What about guys playing on women's fieldhockey or volleyball teams. Peole get into such a ruf about it but many girls I know don't want to be athiletes.

Hawaiiwoman
November 22nd, 2005, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by craiglll@yahoo.com
What about guys playing on women's fieldhockey or volleyball teams. Peole get into such a ruf about it but many girls I know don't want to be athiletes.

Now THAT creeps me out.....just kidding! Fine, if you (man or woman) want to be an athlete, great; if not, go shopping. I happen to be pretty good at both! :D

dorothyrde
November 22nd, 2005, 07:47 AM
Actually most girls these days play some sort of sport, so I disagree about not many girls wanting to be an athlete. In fact, I would say, judging from both my son's classwho is 17 and daughter's class who is 12, the amount of both in sports is getting equal.

Hey, I was a softball player(and you are right, there are some teams that are pretty scary!).

Frank Thompson
November 22nd, 2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
With the advent of Libby Lenton's 51.91 WR in the 100m free. I propose a swim off and battle of the sexes.


Paul "the evil" Smith (45) representing Bobby Riggs

vs.

Libby Lenton (20) as Billie Jean King.


My money rests on the female.


John Smith


From the story over at Swim Info, it looks like Libby could beat any man over 40 in the 200 Free with the 1:53.29 and the 50 Free is rather impressive at :23.85 from the recent World Cup this past week. Two things that stuck out in the article was the wild pink fastskin suit that's shown in the picture and the first paragraph of the story. I think Stephen Thomas who wrote the article has never been over to these USMS threads. If some started a story like that here it would just be baiting for controversy.

SwimStud
March 9th, 2007, 12:55 PM
...there is evidence that boy do feel more comfortable in jammers versus "speedos". In New England, boy participation in HS swim meet increased with the popularity of jammers. When I spoke to several people involved in MA high school swimming they confirmed their belief that jammers made swimming more "comfortable" for boys.

Old thread, but I liked it and felt like voicing my opinion for a change.

I think this "Speedophobia" has significant bearing on the lower number of boys. Partly b/c Speedo briefs are generally mocked by society at large if seen outside of a swimming pool, and this does have a knock on effect.
Europe is not so bad as they tend to have a pretty "laissez faire" attitude to beach life. Indeed much of Europe find clothing a hassle to tanning and provide places for tanning "hassle free."

There is of course the motivation that Dad sees the next Nolan Ryan, Joe Montana, Wayne Gretsky, or lately David Beckham when they see their kid play a sport. The power sports seem to generate a greater feeling of braggability to the narrow minded. Thus many athletes are shepherded away into real sports by parents and other social pressures.

Swimming is a sport that IMHO takes a great deal more natural talent to do even locally good, not top tier elite, at. My friend a good Football (soccer) player said once that it was not fair to race me as I could swim. I told him why not he was swimming too. He replied "No I'm moving in the water; you can SWIM." I got what he was saying. He however can PLAY football I just kicked folks.

Not that I'm great at swimming but I feel a certain predispoition, either hereditary or learned by exposure, to being happy in the water--I suggest all of us here are like this.

So when you mesh the need for a more intrinsic ability in water ( to achieve top end ressults) with the social attitude towards $ being the measure of what's best, and the preoccupation with violent/contact sports equalling manliness, many kids will be initially moved towards sports that might lead to a more obvious financial or street cred return, or even if they are swimmers they leave for other "REAL" sports at a time when non academic activities have to be reduced.

All sports are hard to excel in, and swimming is tough on a person, time and effort is considerable; 5am practices etc. There are many factors, and I don't think the prospect of being beaten by a girl is really a deciding issue.
IMHO.

poolraat
March 9th, 2007, 01:03 PM
There's only one girl I want to beat but she's using shoulder problems as an excuse.:thhbbb: :thhbbb: :thhbbb: .

Kari
March 9th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Why not? It's all relative anyway.

Are you talking about putting two swimmers together, who are about the same speed, in the same event? Maybe - maybe not.

I swim with guys all the time - sometimes I'm faster; sometimes they're faster.

:2cents:

Muppet
March 9th, 2007, 01:40 PM
To answer the question, of course a woman CAN do it. It depends on who is swimming and what event it is.
Hypothetical experiment: if you took a set of fraternal m/f twins (thats about as close as you can get), they went through exactly the same training, did the same meets, same events, etc., the guy is BIOLOGICALLY supposed to beat the gal.

The rest of the time, its just two different swimmers, probably about the same level, gunning for it. Case in point: the ongoing battle of Muppet vs. SwimmieAvsFan in the 200 back. She's been swimming pretty much year round for 18 years with a heavy concentration in back and free. I started taking swimming seriously at age 16, first full year of swimming was in 2003, mostly freestyle and fly. Back to the 200 back head to head, I am 1-2 LCM, 1-0 in SCM and 0-1 SCY. She also routinely beats me at the end of a 100 free descend set in practice.

and NO, I did not "let her win" any of those.
ps - this post is NOT meant to be interpreted as or spawn any loveydovey mush crap - it is just an example

scyfreestyler
March 9th, 2007, 01:48 PM
At the highest levels of elite competition, no.

The Fortress
March 9th, 2007, 02:10 PM
At the highest levels of elite competition, no.

Yeah, I generally agree. Young elite age groupers can be roughly similar, but as they age up and the boys get stronger, the top boys usually beat the top girls, although the gap seems to be narrowing. In masters, it varies, that's why you have Swimmie beating Muppet (although she has the age group advantage). Lots of women can beat men in masters -- happens all the time. But if you look at the most elite in comparable masters age groups (say Top Ten), the guys have faster times. Paul Smith will beat Lisa Dahl.

Now, as to that Poolraat. I'm still swimming, Floyd, even with my wored out shoulder. I've basically always had swimmer's shoulder since I started masters.. So we can still do our 50 fly race. I'm swimming it in SCM on March 25. Probably shouldn't, but I'm not always very sensible. I am doing some backstroke too, which is better. In the meantime, go play with your monofin if you ever want to beat me. :thhbbb:

Redbird Alum
March 9th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Hi all -

Back in the 1970's I had the opportunity to swim in the California HS State Championships at Belmont where one Shirley Babashof blew away all kinds of male swimmers in her age group. (Calif HS Assoc allowed this as she had no competition on the girls side.) As an anchor on my schools' relay, standing next to her as an anchor on her schools relay, it was quite a treat. Of course she blew my doors off! :bow:

In the early 80's, in college, I watched as collegiate program after collegiate program fell to Title 9, but not because women couldn't compete, or practice with the men.

I think alot of the Division 3 schools have it figured out, where their teams essentially practice together (with alot of the women leading the lanes in workouts), while still maintaining the separate events and record books.

In short, I think it is possible that we may see a woman eclipse the record books in our lifetimes.