Forum menu
A comment on the Paula Radcliffe thread got me thinking:
How many sports are there in which men & women compete directly against each other rather than there being separate male & female categories?
Motor Racing is the only one I've thought of so far.
Bowls
Match fishing
mixed singles
Horsey stuff - showjumping and all that.
showjumping, eventing, motor racing
I can't see why darts and shooting type stuff should be split.
frizbee iirc
Ski jumping, although women were banned on safety grounds as we didn't want them hurting themselves, that and they'd win every time apparently due to a weight advantage.
Sailing has a open class at the olympics (49er IIRC, and I don't think it's the only open class, for some reason I think Laser might be too) but so far I don't think there's been a mixed crew yet.
passive aggressiveness.
I can't see why darts and shooting type stuff should be split
I was almost going to ask "are there any sports that are male/female segregated for no apparent reason?" ..
Triathlon, well more Ironman really or should that be Ironperson.
England's Chrissie Wellington "chicked" most men at Challenge Roth this year coming in 6th overall, iirc.
Bridge
Women compete in target rifle competition with men, but there are additional womens prizes I seem to recall.
If you class events according to stamina/endurance/power/speed then there's probably going to be segregation for overwhelmingly physiological reasons.
I was almost going to ask "are there any sports that are male/female segregated for no apparent reason?" ..
that's a more interesting question and far less justifiable. Undoubtedly only applicable to less "Physical" competitions though.
"mixed singles" ?? The mind truly does boggle. Some kind of hermaphrodite ??
synchronized swimming
chess
Triathlon, well more Ironman really or should that be Ironperson.England's Chrissie Wellington "chicked" most men at Challenge Roth this year coming in 6th overall, iirc
Chrissie is ridiculously good, but women and men don't compete directly in Ironman, there are mens and womens categories. That she is so good that she is faster than most of the male competitors doesn't change that.
Golf?
"mixed singles" ?? The mind truly does boggle. Some kind of hermaphrodite ??
oh yes - forget to add
Boggling
"Chrissie is ridiculously good, but women and men don't compete directly in Ironman, there are mens and womens categories. That she is so good that she is faster than most of the male competitors doesn't change that."
Sorry disagree
The overall classification, which is the first classification any amateur, so I guess pro, would look at... says she is 6th.
There is usually a combined results list showing everyone, with an M&F against them, but there are generally separate prizes for the first 3 men, and the first 3 women.
They race on the same course at the same time, but for separate prizes, so it's not truly combined. Looking at the results for Challenge Roth [url=
ROTH.R.MIKATIMING.DE it shows Chrissie as being 1st, despite coming in after the first men, and there are clearly separate results for men and women. In the summary results she was 5th over all, but there's no award for that. Even if she's been 2nd she'd have only got the prize for 1st woman.
Chrissie would've been 28th at the IM Worlds this year had she raced against the men.
Chrissie is ridiculously good, but women and men don't compete directly in Ironman, there are mens and womens categories. That she is so good that she is faster than most of the male competitors doesn't change that.
Same as Paula Radcliffe - she was (still is?) the fastest Brit over the marathon but she doesn't compete directly with men.
wot njee said ^
However, one of the things that pisses me off no end is that prize allocation when you have vet classes.
Mrs S competes in V40 class, but will often win or place in local races. However if she comes in second they give her the V40 prize, not the 2nd prize (Open). Sometimes it doesnt really matter - but it's royally shite, when the second prize itself (say a trinket and a £20 voucher) is greater in value or size than the vet prize that she is awarded.
Also, it sometimes happens that if you have 1st, 2nd and 3rd place all going to V40 women, then the 1st prize open goes to P1, the V40 prize goes to P2 and the P3 gets nothing - the 2nd prize open being awarded to the first non V40 runner to cross the line - which can be several places back and slower than the 3rd position runner.
Stoner - your Mrs should act her age.. obviously.
Difficult one that though Stoner, you've entered a certain category, you can't really expect the prizes from others, although it could be seen as a bit off if they award first to the first finisher, but understandable. 1st is 1st sort of thing.
To give it an MTB analogy, which could be particularly valid in women's fields because they're small. If you enter a 'fun women' team in a 24, but there are only 2 'expert women' teams - should you also get the prize for being 3rd expert? Not really, you should've entered expert.
If your Mrs wants 2nd in Open, enter Open.
Ice skating
You cant enter "open" if you are classed as Vet by british athletics.
Remember the Vet class is a "handicap" compensator. If you dont need the handicap the automatic assumption should be that youve competed at the open level.
There's also usually a rule that you only win one "prize". Its the prize ranking that I object to.
"Chrissie is ridiculously good, but women and men don't compete directly in Ironman, there are mens and womens categories. That she is so good that she is faster than most of the male competitors doesn't change that."
I have absolutely no idea who chrissy is but its not important where she's finished. Or if one woman is particularly outstanding.
Surely what would be important is the average of say the top 50-100 males and top 50-100 females.
If the average speed of of the females is considerably slower, theres probably some statistic like 2 standard deviations difference from the males then they need to be classed separately.
I would imagine in most sports your'll occasionally get one woman who is much better than the others and I've guessing some where along the line they probably have very high testorone level or some kind of inter-sex disorder, like that south african runner.
I take it back then if you don't have the choice. Although I imagine you could appeal to the BTF for an Open license, or just ask the question when you enter the individual event.
Paul Hopkins is a vet, with a vets BCF licence, but races Elite at the Southern XCs, which are BCF sanctioned.
If you dont need the handicap the automatic assumption should be that youve competed at the open level.
I don't it's fair to pick and choose though - 'I'll enter as a vet, if I win the open hooray, otherwise I just win the vets'. Choose one or the other. Otherwise I think it's a bit like my 24 hour analogy, you can't really choose the best outcome for you after the fact.
Whilst I dont deny that that south african "woman" looks terrifying, you cant tell me that the rather feminine, elegant Paul "mother of two" Radcliffe has "very high testorone level or some kind of inter-sex disorder,"
Wow! your missus is over forty and handicapped and she still manages to place in open events! That's a truly inspirational story, unless of course she has bionic legs or arms or something like Lindsay Wagner
Paula is rather beautiful isn't she?
thisisnotaspoon - Member
Golf?
Different tee off points...
you're aware of the other definitions of "handicap" arent you?
Or did you just go for that one for comedic effect?
handicap [han-dee-kap] ?
Origin
hand·i·cap? ?[han-dee-kap] Show IPA noun, verb, -capped, -cap·ping.
noun
1.
a race or other contest in which certain disadvantages or advantages of weight, distance, time, etc., are placed upon competitors to equalize their chances of winning.
2.
the disadvantage or advantage itself.
3.
any disadvantage that makes success more difficult: The main handicap of our business is lack of capital.
4.
a physical or mental disability making participation in certain of the usual activities of daily living more difficult.
[b]any disadvantage that makes success more difficult: The main handicap of our business is lack of capital.[/b]
+
GOODRUNGUIDE.CO.UK Women and men compete both together (ie mixed crews) and against each other in Ocean yacht racing.
If the average speed of of the females is considerably slower, theres probably some statistic like 2 standard deviations difference from the males then they need to be classed separately.
She finished the Ironman World Champs just under an hour behind the winning man, so just over 10% slower, but still ahead of a lot of the men. There are similar margins in plenty of other sports.
I don't think it's a case of being within x distance of the men, they're just separate, full stop. Casta Samenya (sp?) may look like a man, but she's not been [i]that[/i] dominant.
Should Usain Bolt have his own category altogether? As he's better than all the other men? Sebastian Loeb? Sebastian Vettel? Roger Federer?
i will go out on a limb and say it was humour.
however PC we may wish to be men are physcially stronger /bigger whatever than women.
I am not sure if men always out perform women in skill based sports though.
What about Curling?
Bowls
Dancing?
Gymnastics - they dont compete side by side but are they better?
Diving?? no idea
Gymnastics they do different events though don't they? Men don't do the dancey floor stuff, women don't do the rings.
Golf?
Nope.
Different competitions, different tees, different governing bodies. Different class as well, a few of the very best women over the years have tried to compete with the men and never gotten close to even the journeyman pros, let alone the best.
At an amateur level you can compete with women, but only in specific mixed comps, and you'll still be playing off different tees.
"Chrissie is ridiculously good, but women and men don't compete directly in Ironman, there are mens and womens categories. That she is so good that she is faster than most of the male competitors doesn't change that."Sorry disagree
As is your right. You'll be wrong though.
Should Usain Bolt have his own category altogether? As he's better than all the other men? Sebastian Loeb? Sebastian Vettel? Roger Federer?
They all ready do, most of us mortals with more average physical attributes just turn up for a gorrick once in a while or a friendly 5 a side.
For me the only 'proper' sport they really compete fully against us would be the equestrian ones, especially Eventing.
My wife does this, scares the crap outta me...
[IMG]
They all ready do, most of us mortals with more average physical attributes just turn up for a gorrick once in a while or a friendly 5 a side.
No, but you were saying that a (significantly) above average woman should be classified separately from the others. Shouldn't the same be the case with men? I'm not comparing Jim down the pub to Wayne Rooney, I mean Vettel vs the rest of the F1 field. It'd be more interesting if he (or rather his car) wasn't there.
For me the only 'proper' sport they really compete fully against us would be the equestrian ones, especially Eventing.
Horse Trials is rubbish though - not a single back-hop or 360 in sight...