Wmlb?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I have never posted in this forum before, so sorry if it is a little "off." I just wanted to know why there was never a Womens' MLB. there are leagues for women in many other sports.
If the answer is because, "women aren't strong enough", then couldn't diamonds be made with 75 feet to ach abse, or maybe 350 feet to center field to leave the park? I was just always curious.

[Brian McKenna]

Short answer I guess is the dominance of softball as a female sport.

[TonyK]

A slightly longer answer might be in order to have a WMLB league you first must have WLL and HS baseball women's teams to help feed into it. Softball became the sport for HS girls many years ago.

If you read some of NotAboutEgo threads you will see how women were discouraged from forming baseball teams since the 1800's. The All American Baseball League was an attempt to have women play high level professional baseball.

[captlid]

There was the aagpbl that was not even played on full size diamonds during ww2.

From seeing women's baseball develop in the last ten years it still has a long way to go to get to the skill level of the guys and something that people would be willing to pay for to watch.

Just my humble opinion.

Even the women's fastpitch professional league that is in current existence does not bring in to many ticket sales.

In terms of women's strength levels they do perfectly fine on the large field. Playing on a downsized field would be very dangerous as it is in fastpitch softball currently.

[NotAboutEgo]

I have never posted in this forum before, so sorry if it is a little "off." I just wanted to know why there was never a Womens' MLB. there are leagues for women in many other sports.
If the answer is because, "women aren't strong enough", then couldn't diamonds be made with 75 feet to ach abse, or maybe 350 feet to center field to leave the park? I was just always curious.

It's not because of the lack of strength of women playing on regulation size fields. I've been playing women's hardball since 1999, and there are plenty of women who are strong enough, talented enough, and skilled enough to handle playing on regulation size fields. It's nothing more than a matter of adjusting to the larger diamond as compared to softball. There are many women who are stronger than many guys on the baseball field... and that goes for skill as well as for talent, too.

In researching the history of women's baseball and women's softball, women started playing organized baseball around 1830... at the same time men started playing it. The first women's collegiate baseball team was formed at Vassar College in 1866. The Bloomer Girls women's baseball teams survived from 1890 to 1935... 45 years. Between the Vassar College team and the Bloomer Girls teams were several other teams, including teams for African American women like the Dolly Vardens.

When the depression hit, women's and men's baseball pretty much ended for a while. Afterward, men's teams started to form again, but the story is much different for women. That's when women were really discouraged from playing baseball and started being pushed into softball. Softball was invented in the early 1900's, but at first, it was men who played it. Then, not long after, the status quo of the times pretty much forced women to play it instead of baseball.

Even though women faced a lot of adversary for playing baseball before the depression, because it wasn't considered to be "ladylike", it was successful in different ways. Many women made their livings by playing pro baseball, and many paid their way through college by playing it. It wasn't until after that, along with the invention of softball, that things got really ugly.

Not much happened in the way of women's baseball after the Bloomer Girls teams disappeared and when the AAGPBL was formed... except for some women playing here and there. There were some African American women who played professionally in the Negro Leagues.

When looking at the history behind things like women's baseball and what has happened and what hasn't up to the present, we have to look at the state of our society along the way. What has happened with women's baseball is a direct reflection of the status quo of our society, as is pretty much anything else that is a part of our culture.

There were some women who were signed to minor league and even MLB contracts in the first half of the 1900's, but their contracts ended up being voided by the baseball commissioners, and a ban was placed on women playing in MLB in 1952, and that ban still remains today. If women weren't good enough to play in MLB or in the minors, why would there be the need of a ban for them playing in MLB? That seems like quite an oxymoron to me.

During a women's baseball tourney that my team played in back in June in Detroit, vs. the Chicago Gems, several women from the Gems came pretty close to clobbering the ball over the fence... a fence that is at least 315 down the LF line (I don't remember the exact distance, but it's at least 315). They hit the ball to the warning track, fly balls... and that's off pitches that were only in the mid-60's. I was hoping one of them would hit a homerun, just so I could see it. Some of the most fundamentally sound baseball I've seen has been in women's games. A few of the women's teams that are the most fundamentally sound that I've seen are the East Coast Red Sox, the Nashua Pride Pioneers, and the Royal York Cardinals. They would rival most any men's amateur team (not including college or Olympic teams). Some of the most power I've seen in women's baseball comes from the Chicago Gems.

There's no doubt that women can play baseball at high levels and hit legit homeruns and make all the other plays on the same size diamonds that men play on. Is women's baseball still in development, like captlid suggested? Yes, of course it is... given the history of it. Can women's baseball continue to get better and better... of course. I've been around women's baseball since 1998, and I've seen tremendous development and improvement in that time. There are countless numbers of us who are doing what we can to help and contribute. It all takes time, like anything else. The biggest effort comes in shattering the stereotypes and the status quo that have been in existence for so long.

I've seen a lot of men's amateur baseball, and not all of it is high-quality baseball. Most of it is somewhere in the middle between good and bad. Many people assume that if men are playing a sport, including baseball, the games are always good quality. That's not the case.

[NotAboutEgo]

Even with women being pushed into softball after the despression, they faced a lot of adversary to play interscholastic softball. Girls formed scholastic teams and started playing, but school officals were adamant about not wanting them to play. It wasn't until around 1960 that schools started officially opening their doors to women's scholastic softball (and probably to other women's sports as well).

Women have always had to fight to be able to play sports, especially baseball, and the fight isn't completely over with. Even in the times of the ancient Olympics, women had to go off to form their own Olympic competitions to be able to participate in sport as men did. These factors and others are what have influenced things like why there isn't a WMLB.

[NotAboutEgo]

A slightly longer answer might be in order to have a WMLB league you first must have WLL and HS baseball women's teams to help feed into it. Softball became the sport for HS girls many years ago.

If you read some of NotAboutEgo threads you will see how women were discouraged from forming baseball teams since the 1800's. The All American Baseball League was an attempt to have women play high level professional baseball.

You are exactly right, TonyK. Girls' baseball needs to become abundant at the youth league level, in high school, and in college (along with creating a minor league system) in order to support a legitimate WMLB. There are several women's amateur teams and leagues around the U.S. at the present, and the numbers continue to grow. There are a handful of girls' youth leagues, and those numbers continue to grow slowly. Several thousand girls play high school baseball around the country, and a handful of women are playing collegiate baseball... some on scholarship. All of those numbers continue to grow as well.

Little League, Inc. is now considering creating a separate girls' baseball division (stemming from a huge amount of pressure from women's baseball advocates and organizers) to help the growth of girls' baseball. Once this happens, it's going to be a snowball effect. Girls' leagues will grow, and then girls' high school baseball and women's college baseball will be born. We already have a women's national baseball team, and USA Baseball is starting to develop women's programs for the 15U level. It only makes sense that the rest will follow.

It's really hard to understand why some people are so insecure with certain things happening, such as women's baseball. I know it's all about insecurity, but it's very hard to comprehend why people wouldn't want the best for others as well as for themselves. I guess I'm not the norm in the way I think.

[captlid]

Did the girls who hit the ball a bit over 315 feet do it with wood?

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

[NotAboutEgo]

Did the girls who hit the ball a bit over 315 feet do it with wood?

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

As I remember it, they were using composite bats. Most women who play baseball currently are using composite instead of wood... I'm assuming because of the cost factor of wood bats breaking. Perhaps women's baseball will go to all wood someday.

As I stated in a post in another thread, I've used the Brett bats before, and I was able to hit just as well with it as with composite. I know they have a fiberglass shell over the wood, but I don't know if this adds any pop when hitting the ball. Using the Brett bats feels the same as using regular wood bats, though.

[TonyK]

"Little League, Inc. is now considering creating a separate girls' baseball division (stemming from a huge amount of pressure from women's baseball advocates and organizers) to help the growth of girls' baseball. Once this happens, it's going to be a snowball effect. Girls' leagues will grow, and then girls' high school baseball and women's college baseball will be born."

This is already creating discussions about whether or not girls belong on boy's LL baseball teams. I think LL Inc. my have to adjust league boundaries since 200 to 400 girls may not all join baseball teams at once and forget about softball. My local LL would likely field 2 or 3 girls baseball teams per age level and they would play against the nearest LL's.

Whenever you upset the apple cart remember that the attacks are not directed at you personally but on the position you have taken.

[NotAboutEgo]

"Little League, Inc. is now considering creating a separate girls' baseball division (stemming from a huge amount of pressure from women's baseball advocates and organizers) to help the growth of girls' baseball. Once this happens, it's going to be a snowball effect. Girls' leagues will grow, and then girls' high school baseball and women's college baseball will be born."

This is already creating discussions about whether or not girls belong on boy's LL baseball teams. I think LL Inc. my have to adjust league boundaries since 200 to 400 girls may not all join baseball teams at once and forget about softball. My local LL would likely field 2 or 3 girls baseball teams per age level and they would play against the nearest LL's.

Whenever you upset the apple cart remember that the attacks are not directed at you personally but on the position you have taken.

While I agree with what you are saying, no one is asking girls to drop softball all together, especially when it comes to creating and developing girls' youth baseball leagues... even within the LL, Inc. system. I understand that isn't the point of your post, but most people think that advocates, organizers, and supports of girls' and women's baseball are out to abolish softball and are trying to get girls to convert to baseball and forget softball, when that isn't the case at all.

The goal is to provide girls with baseball opportunities when they choose to have those... along with softball. And, from my experience and background in women's baseball, I know there is plenty of interest for girls to play baseball. It may not be the case in every corner of the U.S., but it is the case in enough areas to support girls' leagues... and it will grow over time. The numbers of girls currently playing baseball will tell you that, and there are even more who want to play baseball but who don't have the opportunity to do so.

I know that attacks aren't personal when it comes to breaking down barriers. I have learned that over time through experience. That still doesn't make it easy to comprehend, and I wasn't speaking of anything personal. I was speaking of the way the majority of people in our society think.

The whole point is, plenty of girls want to play baseball and therefore, they should have the opportunity to do so... point blank. Those who aren't comfortable with it or secure enough to handle opening their minds to that will just have to learn how to deal with it or ignore it all together. The world isn't going to stop because of them.

[Charger567]

It's not because of the lack of strength of women playing on regulation size fields. I've been playing women's hardball since 1999, and there are plenty of women who are strong enough, talented enough, and skilled enough to handle playing on regulation size fields. It's nothing more than a matter of adjusting to the larger diamond as compared to softball. There are many women who are stronger than many guys on the baseball field... and that goes for skill as well as for talent, too.

I am sorry, but I don't buy that. I am not sexist, but just take a quick glance at the LLWS and the LL Softball WS. You will see a huge gap in terms of both talent and strength. To find some way to make them face off would be a joke, the men would dominate like pro's playing middle schoolers.

[NotAboutEgo]

I am sorry, but I don't buy that. I am not sexist, but just take a quick glance at the LLWS and the LL Softball WS. You will see a huge gap in terms of both talent and strength. To find some way to make them face off would be a joke, the men would dominate like pro's playing middle schoolers.

First of all, the thread is about why there isn't a WMLB... not about "making" girls and boys face off. I mentioned my experience of seeing and participating in games where men and women play together... baseball, not softball... and the women who play have absolutely no problem hanging with the guys. I mentioned this to point out that the reason there is no WMLB at this time has nothing to do with the strength issue... because the person who started this thread was wondering about it.

Secondly, comparing men and women playing together to pro's playing middle schoolers is so far off the map, it isn't funny. In order to form an opinion, one should actually go out and watch women play. I'm not talking about women who don't have experience playing baseball and who are trying it for the first time, either. Some of the most fundamentally sound baseball games I've seen are women's games. Sure, guys may have more core strength than women on average, but strength doesn't correlate into talent or fundamentals.

Currently, there are girls' youth baseball teams that are competing in youth baseball competitions made up of mostly boys' baseball teams. These girls teams are beating some of the boys' teams. Considering that most girls have less experience playing baseball than boys do, it shows that girls can compete with them and be successful. The competition will get better the more girls grow up playing baseball as boys do.

Also, talent has nothing to do with gender. You are suggesting that males are born with natural talent but girls are not. That is completely inaccurate.

[Charger567]

All I am saying is, I don't see any talent besides the pitching in the little league softball world series. Some of the girls seem uncoordinated, slow, and talentless. Again, I am not sexist, I just think there aren't too many girls who could compete. Maybe I am just used to my citie's softball program, with girls who can barely catch, are terrified of pop ups, and will only get a hit if they hit the ball fair. Not suggesting it is always like this, but I would just think my city of 100,000 could find some more talent.

[NotAboutEgo]

All I am saying is, I don't see any talent besides the pitching in the little league softball world series. Some of the girls seem uncoordinated, slow, and talentless. Again, I am not sexist, I just think there aren't too many girls who could compete. Maybe I am just used to my citie's softball program, with girls who can barely catch, are terrified of pop ups, and will only get a hit if they hit the ball fair. Not suggesting it is always like this, but I would just think my city of 100,000 could find some more talent.

I've seen so many female baseball players with tons of talent... from around the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Many of the women's teams I've played against and have seen play could beat many men's amateur teams hands down, because they are better players and have better fundamentals and mechanics.

The comments we hear most from umpires who work both women's and men's games tell us that women focus on fundamentals and mechanics more than men do, and therefore, a lot of times they are better ballplayers.

As I've stated before, talent has nothing to do with gender. There are males with talent and there are females with talent. It's what you do with the talent that matters. Perhaps the girls in your league aren't that good because they have little or no experience and therefore are intimidated. If all the girls in your league played college softball, I'm sure the story would be much different.

[JeepingBaseball]

Baseball and softball are two entirely DIFFERENT games. Just because you seen a couple of women play softball, shouldn't automatically assume that's how she would play in baseball.

In softball, I can only play catcher. That's it. I'm completely useless in a softball game otherwise.

In baseball I can play most positions with the exception of 3rd base and short stop.

It's a big difference.

[Utility07]

These girls teams are beating some of the boys' teams.

What age???

[JeepingBaseball]

What age???

Read what she said in entirely:

"Currently, there are girls' youth baseball teams that are competing in youth baseball competitions made up of mostly boys' baseball teams. These girls teams are beating some of the boys' teams."

She wasn't referring to women. LL goes to a certain age. And in that age.... since girls develop stronger and better than boys do at that age (don't look at me, it's a scientific fact).... it doesn't matter what age. Little League, is still... Little League.

[Utility07]

Does it go to 11? Because at that age, the girls are becoming women, and the boys arent going to become men for 2 more years. Girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier due to hormones in our foods, and the boys dont seem to be effected as much.

[JeepingBaseball]

Does it go to 11? Because at that age, the girls are becoming women, and the boys arent going to become men for 2 more years. Girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier due to hormones in our foods, and the boys dont seem to be effected as much.

Hormones in our food or not.... it's nothing new or shocking about the scientific fact that girls will mature before boys. Always have been like that.


As far as what age Little League goes up to, I don't know. And what difference would it make in your argument? If anything you just SUPPORTED the argument of girls baseball teams in Little League.... after all... you just said it yourself that they're stronger. So why cant they have their own division within the league?

[Utility07]

Because it would have to be during softball season.

[Macker]

I've seen so many female baseball players with tons of talent... from around the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Many of the women's teams I've played against and have seen play could beat many men's amateur teams hands down, because they are better players and have better fundamentals and mechanics.

But the womens teams you are seeing are the cream of the crop. The mens amateur teams you have seen are nowhere near the cream of the crop of mens teams. They are comprised of players not even good enough to make the lowest rung of professional baseball, unless it's a summer collegiate league in which case I doubt your teams are better.

Isn't it true when you see these womens teams, you are seeing some of the best womens players in existence? When you see a mens amateur team, aren't you seeing just one team of a league of about 8 teams? Now if you take the best women all on one team, I can believe they can compete. But suppose they wanted to expand the league so there were 8 mens teams and 8 womens teams, with 4 of each in two different divisions.

In such a league, you would now need 120 women, assuming 15-person rosters. If you want to take the cream of the crop of womens players and join the league, they might be competitive. I don't see you filling out 8 teams and being competitive. (I'm not talking about a call to all women in the world to play in this league. I'm just talking about the females in the general area of this league -- the same geographic area in which the men come from; remember, this is just a local amateur league.)

As far as women having better mechanics and fundamentals than men, I assume you are comparing amateur teams again. That I can believe. Why? Because in my experience with amateur leagues, the men aren't out there to prove anything. They are out there for fun. Some guys go up there to try to jack the ball out of the park every time. It's just a fun way for them to play a little baseball. However, if you are talking about summer collegiate leagues, like the Cape Cod League, I'd love to see womens teams as fundamentally and mechanically sound as those players.

But the real issue here is why isn't there a womens MLB. I am assuming that M is for Major and not Minor. The simple reason is that even if your teams are better than mens amateur teams, they are nowhere near the level of mens MLB. That alone makes it a hard sell.

I know baseball and softball are different, but I've been to major division ASA national womens softball tournaments. Other than spouses and kids, the paying attendance is less than 10. How would you propose to draw crowds for a womens MLB?

[JeepingBaseball]

Because it would have to be during softball season.

and that has to do with ANYTHING because..... ???????

[NotAboutEgo]

But the womens teams you are seeing are the cream of the crop. The mens amateur teams you have seen are nowhere near the cream of the crop of mens teams. They are comprised of players not even good enough to make the lowest rung of professional baseball, unless it's a summer collegiate league in which case I doubt your teams are better.

Isn't it true when you see these womens teams, you are seeing some of the best womens players in existence? When you see a mens amateur team, aren't you seeing just one team of a league of about 8 teams? Now if you take the best women all on one team, I can believe they can compete. But suppose they wanted to expand the league so there were 8 mens teams and 8 womens teams, with 4 of each in two different divisions.

In such a league, you would now need 120 women, assuming 15-person rosters. If you want to take the cream of the crop of womens players and join the league, they might be competitive. I don't see you filling out 8 teams and being competitive. (I'm not talking about a call to all women in the world to play in this league. I'm just talking about the females in the general area of this league -- the same geographic area in which the men come from; remember, this is just a local amateur league.)

As far as women having better mechanics and fundamentals than men, I assume you are comparing amateur teams again. That I can believe. Why? Because in my experience with amateur leagues, the men aren't out there to prove anything. They are out there for fun. Some guys go up there to try to jack the ball out of the park every time. It's just a fun way for them to play a little baseball. However, if you are talking about summer collegiate leagues, like the Cape Cod League, I'd love to see womens teams as fundamentally and mechanically sound as those players.

But the real issue here is why isn't there a womens MLB. I am assuming that M is for Major and not Minor. The simple reason is that even if your teams are better than mens amateur teams, they are nowhere near the level of mens MLB. That alone makes it a hard sell.

I know baseball and softball are different, but I've been to major division ASA national womens softball tournaments. Other than spouses and kids, the paying attendance is less than 10. How would you propose to draw crowds for a womens MLB?

The current women's players and teams that are the cream of the crop can't be compared to the men's teams and players that are the cream of the crop, because women's baseball does NOT have the SAME opportunities and levels YET as men do. We do NOT have umpteen girls' youth leagues, we do NOT have girls' high school baseball, we do NOT have women's collegiate baseball, we do NOT have women's minor or Major League baseball, we have NEVER had women's Olympic baseball, and the USA Baseball-sanctioned women's national team just came about in 2004, so the level of development for even the women's national team is NOT even close to being the same as it is for males. Female amateur players who are the best at this point play FAR LESS games a season than do many guys who play in city leagues and local league like the MSBL and others. So get off your high horse and stop making excuses to discredit women. Like I said, on average, the women's teams play far less games a season than do many/most men's amateur leagues, so therefore, at this point, comparing the best female players to amateur men's players is more than FAIR.

Furthermore, many guys who play amateur baseball have had high school, collegiate, minor league, AND MLB experience. No woman in this day who's playing baseball has had minor league or MLB experience. There are just a handful of women who've had collegiate baseball experience, even though the numbers are slowly growing as a few people out there are open-minded enough to give women who are capable of playing at that level the chance to do so, and umpteen girls across the country are playing high school baseball. The opportunities that women have had to this point compared to men are a far cry from the opportunities that men have had.

Remember, at this point, women's baseball is still at the amateur level... with a lack of the opportunities and experience men have had since the beginning of organized baseball. You are talking like women's baseball has the exact opportunities that men have... which is so wrong.

Many of the women who play today are some of the best female players right now, but not all who play are the cream of the crop... yet, they are talented, solid baseball players. We don't have nearly the infrastructure that men have, so of course there is going to be more of a gap between the typical male amateur player compared to the MLB player than that of the best female players compared to the average female player.

Until women have the same opportunities, the gap between the best female players and the average play isn't going to be as big the gap between the best male players and the average male amateur player (notice, I said "average male player", separating the best male players... meaning the pro players... from the average player who has never had a chance of being a pro player... women can only dream of being a pro baseball at this point, until things change).

[Macker]

The current women's players and teams that are the cream of the crop can't be compared to the men's teams and players that are the cream of the crop, because women's baseball does NOT have the SAME opportunities and levels YET as men do.

If what you say here is true, and I believe it is, how could what you said earlier be true, specifically: "Many of the women's teams I've played against and have seen play could beat many men's amateur teams hands down, because they are better players and have better fundamentals and mechanics."



So get off your high horse and stop making excuses to discredit women.

Womens baseball, for the reasons you cited, is not on par with mens baseball. It's not even on par with Single A baseball. If any women are talented enough to play pro baseball, I'm behind them all the way. But they are a long ways from having a womens MLB. No high horse about it. Simple facts.

[NotAboutEgo]

If what you say here is true, and I believe it is, how could what you said earlier be true, specifically: "Many of the women's teams I've played against and have seen play could beat many men's amateur teams hands down, because they are better players and have better fundamentals and mechanics."

Womens baseball, for the reasons you cited, is not on par with mens baseball. It's not even on par with Single A baseball. If any women are talented enough to play pro baseball, I'm behind them all the way. But they are a long ways from having a womens MLB. No high horse about it. Simple facts.

I'm talking amateur ball here. I'm not talking the minors and majors, because women don't have that... and we don't even have women's high school or collegiate teams. As I've already stated, women's baseball is still at the amateur level with far less opportunities than men have, yet there are plenty of women who can and do compete on men's amateur teams and there are women's teams that can beat men's amateur teams. Bringing Single A into the picture, or even college baseball, is a moot point, because women don't have collegiate baseball or pro baseball opportunities. Some women who play today (very few) have played high school ball. Most of the girls who have had the opportunity to play on their boys' high school teams are still in high school.

Of course women are a ways away from having a WMLB. No one has argued against that here. We have stated on here many times before in other threads that in order to have a solid women's pro league, many other things need to happen first, including creating more girls' youth leagues, making baseball a sport for girls in high school, making baseball a varsity collegiate sport for women, and developing some sort of minor league system... perhaps with some of the women's amateur teams that exist now.

The person who started this thread asked if the reason there isn't a WMLB is because of the strength issue. The purpose of my post was to point out that that isn't the reason there isn't a WMLB, and I stated some of the main reasons why there isn't. I went on to say (supporting my statement that the strength issue isn't a reason for not having a WMLB) that there are plenty of women around the country who play on men's teams and in men's leagues who don't have any problem with doing so and being successful, and there are women's teams that could beat some men's teams because they are better fundamentally and mechanically and that the strength issue doesn't come into play all the time. I'm talking about amateur baseball here, not about collegiate baseball or minor league ball or MLB.

You stated something to the fact that saying that the women who can play against/amongst men and the women's teams that can beat men's teams are the cream of the crop for women and therefore, it isn't valid to say they can beat men. You stated it as if saying the best female players of today are pro players or something, and therefore it isn't fair to compare them to the average "Joe" who plays. Like I've already stated, 99.99% of us female players have never played high school baseball or collegiate baseball. Most of us play less than 15 games per summer, which I know is far less than what most men's leagues play.

[Baseball Mum]

Does it go to 11? Because at that age, the girls are becoming women, and the boys arent going to become men for 2 more years. Girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier due to hormones in our foods, and the boys dont seem to be effected as much.

Utility 07, but I just have to answer your post - that is after I get all the drink off my screen that I splurted out when I read your post. Let me say that I know this is a baseball forum, but the science that is being used as reasoning is false science.

The thing that got me going was your comment about hormones in the food. For starters you are mistaken on a few counts. The fact that girls hit it earlier than boys has nothing to do with hormones in the food, but rather hormones in the body and the time clock that's been there since time immemorial. It's just the way it is - always has been - always will be. Reaching puberty in girls is far more closely related to weight. Here in Australia where we use metric weights, we say "she'll hit puberty when she hits 50kg" that's about 110lb. It's almost invariably correct. If children, are eating more and exercising less, they will hit that 'magic' mark earlier than in the past. It has nothing to do with hormones coming from the food. Boys' switch for puberty is not so much weight related, and will always be later than the girls in any case.

Because this is a baseball forum rather than a dietry/scientific one, I'll leave the issue of whether or not there are hormones in certain foods and the effect they have or don't have on the people who eat them, other than to suggest that Utility 07 reads up on the issue before using it to support his argument.

[freddy]

Utility 07, but I just have to answer your post - that is after I get all the drink off my screen that I splurted out when I read your post. Let me say that I know this is a baseball forum, but the science that is being used as reasoning is false science.

The thing that got me going was your comment about hormones in the food. For starters you are mistaken on a few counts. The fact that girls hit it earlier than boys has nothing to do with hormones in the food, but rather hormones in the body and the time clock that's been there since time immemorial. It's just the way it is - always has been - always will be. Reaching puberty in girls is far more closely related to weight. Here in Australia where we use metric weights, we say "she'll hit puberty when she hits 50kg" that's about 110lb. It's almost invariably correct. If children, are eating more and exercising less, they will hit that 'magic' mark earlier than in the past. It has nothing to do with hormones coming from the food. Boys' switch for puberty is not so much weight related, and will always be later than the girls in any case.

Because this is a baseball forum rather than a dietry/scientific one, I'll leave the issue of whether or not there are hormones in certain foods and the effect they have or don't have on the people who eat them, other than to suggest that Utility 07 reads up on the issue before using it to support his argument.

His question was simple enough to understand and mine will be also.
You are making a statement without hard proof. I look at the girl of today VS the girls I went to school with. There is no doubt that the girls are developing way faster, as a matter of fact I heard a Dr on a show saying that girls are reaching puberty 1.5yr's earlier then 15yrs ago. He said they were eating BETTER food with more hormones which is the cause for the change. If you have somewhere I can read different please post it as I’m not afraid to be proven wrong.

[NotAboutEgo]

His question was simple enough to understand and mine will be also.
You are making a statement without hard proof. I look at the girl of today VS the girls I went to school with. There is no doubt that the girls are developing way faster, as a matter of fact I heard a Dr on a show saying that girls are reaching puberty 1.5yr's earlier then 15yrs ago. He said they were eating BETTER food with more hormones which is the cause for the change. If you have somewhere I can read different please post it as I’m not afraid to be proven wrong.

If the hormones in the food of today are causing girls to develop faster, why isn't it affecting boys and making them develop faster, too? Are the hormones partial to only affecting girls in making them develop faster than they used to?

[freddy]

If the hormones in the food of today are causing girls to develop faster, why isn't it affecting boys and making them develop faster, too? Are the hormones partial to only affecting girls in making them develop faster than they used to?

They did not discuss boys/men but I can only guess we are made differently:D
Maybe thats why women are taking over the business world. New generation hey wait, maybe we should send our food to the middle East in 15yrs the women will run the countries!!!!!!! No bombs just hormonal food for women!!

[NotAboutEgo]

They did not discuss boys/men but I can only guess we are made differently:D
Maybe thats why women are taking over the business world. New generation hey wait, maybe we should send our food to the middle East in 15yrs the women will run the countries!!!!!!! No bombs just hormonal food for women!!

We are made differently? Other than having some variations on a few body parts and having different levels of the same hormones and having a difference in core strength... generally speaking... we aren't that different from one another. Do you really believe that? Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: :faint: :shrug:

[Baseball Mum]

His question was simple enough to understand and mine will be also.
You are making a statement without hard proof. I look at the girl of today VS the girls I went to school with. There is no doubt that the girls are developing way faster, as a matter of fact I heard a Dr on a show saying that girls are reaching puberty 1.5yr's earlier then 15yrs ago. He said they were eating BETTER food with more hormones which is the cause for the change. If you have somewhere I can read different please post it as I’m not afraid to be proven wrong.

A quick look for an article has turned up this one. Of course there are gaps in it, though I'm not going to go looking further right now. It is a reasoned article and the science is quite sound. http://www.livescience.com/health/070904_bad_puberty.html

[freddy]

A quick look for an article has turned up this one. Of course there are gaps in it, though I'm not going to go looking further right now. It is a reasoned article and the science is quite sound. http://www.livescience.com/health/070904_bad_puberty.html

I read the article, and he touches on all the points without pointing one in particular. All I know is when I was in school you new who the heavy chester girls were all 2 of them. Now my daughters are 13 and 17 and I cant believe that I missed this developement in High School as I have 20/20 vision. Whatever it is a change has occured for the better or worse doesnt change a thing in my world, as I dont judge on looks alone. I married a teacher:D Have a nice evening

[freddy]

:crazy :waving
We are made differently? Other than having some variations on a few body parts and having different levels of the same hormones and having a difference in core strength... generally speaking... we aren't that different from one another. Do you really believe that? Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: :faint: :shrug:

Are you kidding me. Men and Women are to completely different animals.
We might look the same but we are so different. Im not saying one is better then the other just stating a point

[NotAboutEgo]

:crazy :waving

Are you kidding me. Men and Women are to completely different animals.
We might look the same but we are so different. Im not saying one is better then the other just stating a point

No... we're not two completely different animals. We are two different genders of the same species, and we have way more in common than most people think. Our differences are about variations, not complete differences in kind. Talk to experts on it, and they will back me up with what I'm saying.

It's social conditioning that makes us seem so different, and social conditioning is a bunch of crap. It's what creates the status quo, and that has to do with how individual minds think, how people act and react, is based on insecurity, etc. It has nothing to do with gender... meaning, gender doesn't create it or determine who likes what or who does what. The social conditioning of people has been what determines most things in our culture/society. Gender doesn't determine them, contrary to popular belief.

Anyway, when girls or women beat boys or guys at something, why do people have to dig for excuses for why it has happened? That's another perfect example of social conditioning... making an excuse for something that someone can't accept based upon their insecurity.

[digglahhh]

:crazy :waving

Are you kidding me. Men and Women are to completely different animals.
We might look the same but we are so different. Im not saying one is better then the other just stating a point

Entirely different, except for the human genome project's irrefutable proof that we are 99.999...% the same!

Read Mum's initial response again, it doesn't contradict the anecdotal trend that you see in your experiences. If female puberty is triggered by reaching a certain weight, and the food and lifestyle our culture has adopted (different from even 15 years ago) is causing our children to gain more weight at an earlier age (not anecdotal by the way - empirical, verifiable data), then, hormones notwithstanding, our girls are going to hit puberty earlier.

If puberty is not triggered by a certain weight in males, then that change won't influence the age at which puberty will begin for them.

[digglahhh]

Anyway, when girls or women beat boys or guys at something, why do people have to dig for excuses for why it has happened? That's another perfect example of social conditioning... making an excuse for something that someone can't accept based upon their insecurity.

Well, it's not really making a new excuse. If the reason people attribute to the higher level of male baseball is the strength differential, it would be a natural conclusion that if girls excelled at younger ages, it too would have to do with strength. The truth of course is not purely physiological, social, or psychological. It is a combination of all these things.

[digglahhh]

Womens baseball, for the reasons you cited, is not on par with mens baseball. It's not even on par with Single A baseball. If any women are talented enough to play pro baseball, I'm behind them all the way. But they are a long ways from having a womens MLB. No high horse about it. Simple facts.

While I am inclined to agree with you in regard to the elite female amateur teams being more talented, relative to the overall body of female ball players, than men's amateur teams are to the pool of male players, I don't really know how the above conclusion follows.

Women's professional baseball would be its own discreet entity; the standard for a women's major league would be entirely independent of the standard for the current MLB. Women's major league baseball would simply represent the best that women's baseball has to offer (just like MLB does), what that best is, is irrelevant.

If that league is unable to support itself because of an insufficient fanbase, then so be it. But comparisons to MLB are ill conceived.

[Macker]

If that league is unable to support itself because of an insufficient fanbase, then so be it. But comparisons to MLB are ill conceived.

The WNBA is the highest level of womens basketball. However, I know a lot of people you couldn't pay to go to one of the games. Why? Not specifically because they are women, but because it is not on the level of the mens NBA. They might as well go see a CBA game, just as most fans would be more interesting in going to a A or AA baseball game than a WMLB game. That's why comparison to the level of MLB is relevant.

I'd go to WMLB games. I just don't believe it would have the fan support it would need to survive unless things occur first (as specified in NotAboutEgo's post above.)

[digglahhh]

Gotcha Macker.

What threw me off was your comment about, "if any woman is talented enough to play pro ball." That implied that the standard determining whether a Womens' Professional Baseball leave CAN EXIST had something to do with a comparison of their skill level to men who play in professional leagues. The standard is of whether that league COULD SUCCEED is whether there would be a fanbase to support it.

It's just like any other business - you don't have to make better widgets than I do, you just gotta get enough people to buy em to keep your factory open. So long as you are being paid to make widgets, you are a professional widget maker.

[Charger567]

I've seen so many female baseball players with tons of talent... from around the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Many of the women's teams I've played against and have seen play could beat many men's amateur teams hands down, because they are better players and have better fundamentals and mechanics.

The comments we hear most from umpires who work both women's and men's games tell us that women focus on fundamentals and mechanics more than men do, and therefore, a lot of times they are better ballplayers.

As I've stated before, talent has nothing to do with gender. There are males with talent and there are females with talent. It's what you do with the talent that matters. Perhaps the girls in your league aren't that good because they have little or no experience and therefore are intimidated. If all the girls in your league played college softball, I'm sure the story would be much different.

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

[NotAboutEgo]

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

First of all, it does mean something to me when I say that, because I've seen it with my own eyes and I've experienced it... and I don't need any other sort of proof. I don't care whether you or anyone else believes me or not.

Secondly, have you even been to any games where there were females playing, and if so, how many games and what type of experience do they have?

Remember, your corner of the world is not the only corner that exists. Just because you may not have witnessed it doesn't mean it's not true and hasn't happened in another corner of the world... even if you haven't heard about it.

egocentrism

[NotAboutEgo]

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

Here's an article about a female player...

"Anna Makes #1 State Team
WBL Sparks player, Anna Kimbrell, just made the #1 12U boys’ baseball team in South Carolina. Anna was invited to try out for this team after being scouted at Cooperstown Dreams Park while playing for the Sparks. Another Anna story…last season she smashed a home run by hitting the flagpole and threw a no-hitter in the same game. Congratulations Anna!"

http://www.saskbaseball.ca/women_baseball_news.htm

[digglahhh]

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

You're right to say that some sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. Assuming what NAE said is true, it still doesn't really mean anything. It's the reflexive and snappy, requisitions for such an onerous burden of proof that really underlines the issue though. The response to somebody claiming to see highly talented female ballplayers is similar to the reactions claims of smart blacks probably elicited centuries ago. Why is it so difficult to imagine very talented female ballplayers, and why must the litmus test of their talent be upper echelon Major Leaguers?

Talent is not gender-biased. Strength is, though. So given, a male and female blessed with equal talent, equally intent and dedicated to harnessing and developing that talent, the male is going to throw the ball harder and hit the ball further - all things being equal. But, again, that is not talent.

The other thing to consider is that females are often discouraged from developing natural athletic talents, or pressured to divert their attempts to hone their skills from baseball to softball. It's not really a level playing field, because female athletes have to overcome more than male athletes. For females to even be competitive with men, it is a great accomplishment because of the obstacles in the face of that accomplishment. But, yet again, direct male-female competition need not be the standard by which we judge female athletes or athletics.

[NotAboutEgo]

You're right to say that some sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. Assuming what NAE said is true, it still doesn't really mean anything. It's the reflexive and snappy, requisitions for such an onerous burden of proof that really underlines the issue though. The response to somebody claiming to see highly talented female ballplayers is similar to the reactions claims of smart blacks probably elicited centuries ago. Why is it so difficult to imagine very talented female ballplayers, and why must the litmus test of their talent be upper echelon Major Leaguers?

Talent is not gender-biased. Strength is, though. So given, a male and female blessed with equal talent, equally intent and dedicated to harnessing and developing that talent, the male is going to throw the ball harder and hit the ball further - all things being equal. But, again, that is not talent.

The other thing to consider is that females are often discouraged from developing natural athletic talents, or pressured to divert their attempts to hone their skills from baseball to softball. It's not really a level playing field, because female athletes have to overcome more than male athletes. For females to even be competitive with men, it is a great accomplishment because of the obstacles in the face of that accomplishment. But, yet again, direct male-female competition need not be the standard by which we judge female athletes or athletics.

Thanks for your post, digglahhh. Also, going along with what you said about talent not being gender-biased but strength being so and strength not equating to talent, it doesn't mean women aren't able to compete with men.

Women can learn to hit a 95+ mph fastball, hit curveballs, change-ups, etc. That doesn't require the highest level of strength or even much strength for that matter. It requires seeing the ball, being able to time the ball, and enough skill to be able to hit the ball, and success of hitting depends on how effectively one hits the ball. None of those require strength, and women are not inferior to men at being able to hit such pitches. Most of it takes focus of mind along with the physical skills. Some people are lucky and don't have to focus on focusing their minds and can be successful by just doing. This isn't gender-biased.

Can women ever get to the point of throwing 90+ mph? Who knows, but I never say anything is impossible. Right now, there are several women who are playing hardball who can throw in the 70's and that pool continues to grow, and the elite of women pitchers right now are throwing in the 80's. Can this be improved upon? It's very highly likely.

Can women hit homeruns? Of course they can. I've seen women hit balls 300+ feet, and that's off pitchers throwing in the mid-60's. Just think of how much further the ball would go if a woman was hitting a 90+ mph pitch.

Anyway, like digglahhh said, direct male-female competition shouldn't be the standard for women's athletics and athletes. The mind that focuses on power and on comparing everything one group does to what another group does is focusing on nothing but external power rather than skill, ability, talent, focus, work ethic, mental toughness, believing in one's self, etc.

[NotAboutEgo]

Would anyone compare men's collegiate baseball to MLB? Of course not. Why? Because it's its own entity, just like high school baseball is and minor league baseball is. So, why would anyone continue to compare women's baseball to MLB, especially when all women have right now are amateur baseball leagues and teams and a U.S. women's national team that has been in existence for just 3 years?

[FindAGap12]

Thanks for your post, digglahhh. Also, going along with what you said about talent not being gender-biased but strength being so and strength not equating to talent, it doesn't mean women aren't able to compete with men.

Women can learn to hit a 95+ mph fastball, hit curveballs, change-ups, etc. That doesn't require the highest level of strength or even much strength for that matter. It requires seeing the ball, being able to time the ball, and enough skill to be able to hit the ball, and success of hitting depends on how effectively one hits the ball. None of those require strength, and women are not inferior to men at being able to hit such pitches. Most of it takes focus of mind along with the physical skills. Some people are lucky and don't have to focus on focusing their minds and can be successful by just doing. This isn't gender-biased.

Can women ever get to the point of throwing 90+ mph? Who knows, but I never say anything is impossible. Right now, there are several women who are playing hardball who can throw in the 70's and that pool continues to grow, and the elite of women pitchers right now are throwing in the 80's. Can this be improved upon? It's very highly likely.

Can women hit homeruns? Of course they can. I've seen women hit balls 300+ feet, and that's off pitchers throwing in the mid-60's. Just think of how much further the ball would go if a woman was hitting a 90+ mph pitch.

Anyway, like digglahhh said, direct male-female competition shouldn't be the standard for women's athletics and athletes. The mind that focuses on power and on comparing everything one group does to what another group does is focusing on nothing but external power rather than skill, ability, talent, focus, work ethic, mental toughness, believing in one's self, etc.

There are a number of inaccuracies here. One, is does take strength to hit a 95 MPH fastball. Specifically, batspeed. Without this batspeed, mechanics and timing do not help that much. In order to consistently hit 90+, you must have batspeed in that area...90+. Two, the difference between throwing in the 70s and 90 is gigantic. The average male throws in the 70s. One in ten thousand can throw 90. That is a huge leap. Finally, the story of seeing a female hitting a 300+ homerun off of a 60 mph,and then specualting that the same swing off of a 90 mph pitch would produce a much farther hit is false. The velocity of the pitch is a much smaller factor than people think in determing exit velocity (and potential distance). Batspeed is the number one factor, after squaring the ball up of course. Why do you think that MLB home run derby produces farther home runs than any during the season? The pitches are only at 55-60 MPH. I understand that you are passionate about women gaining respect and having a place to play, but please stop stating specualtion as fact...

[TG Coach]

As far as women being equal to men in sports I'll paraphrase what Mia Hamm said a few years ago after the Women's Soccer tem won the World Cup.

Hamm was asked if she was interested in playing in the MLS. Her response was the reporter didn't understand the difference in men's and women's sports and athletic ability. She said her team that just won the world championship had trouble playing against U19 state championship boys soccer teams in their pre World Cup game schedule.

Now where does a state level U19 team fit in the overall ranking of teams in the world ? It's light years below the MLS. Most of the players will never be good enough to play in the MLS. The MLS is light years below European soccer.

[NotAboutEgo]

As far as women being equal to men in sports I'll paraphrase what Mia Hamm said a few years ago after the Women's Soccer tem won the World Cup.

Hamm was asked if she was interested in playing in the MLS. Her response was the reporter didn't understand the difference in men's and women's sports and athletic ability. She said her team that just won the world championship had trouble playing against U19 state championship boys soccer teams in their pre World Cup game schedule.

Now where does a state level U19 team fit in the overall ranking of teams in the world ? It's light years below the MLS. Most of the players will never be good enough to play in the MLS. The MLS is light years below European soccer.

Re-read Digglahhh's last post... "Talent is not gender-biased. Strength is, though. So given, a male and female blessed with equal talent, equally intent and dedicated to harnessing and developing that talent, the male is going to throw the ball harder and hit the ball further - all things being equal. But, again, that is not talent."

In terms of strength, yes, men have the advantage. In terms of talent, skills, and ability, they don't.

[NotAboutEgo]

There are a number of inaccuracies here. One, is does take strength to hit a 95 MPH fastball. Specifically, batspeed. Without this batspeed, mechanics and timing do not help that much. In order to consistently hit 90+, you must have batspeed in that area...90+. Two, the difference between throwing in the 70s and 90 is gigantic. The average male throws in the 70s. One in ten thousand can throw 90. That is a huge leap. Finally, the story of seeing a female hitting a 300+ homerun off of a 60 mph,and then specualting that the same swing off of a 90 mph pitch would produce a much farther hit is false. The velocity of the pitch is a much smaller factor than people think in determing exit velocity (and potential distance). Batspeed is the number one factor, after squaring the ball up of course. Why do you think that MLB home run derby produces farther home runs than any during the season? The pitches are only at 55-60 MPH. I understand that you are passionate about women gaining respect and having a place to play, but please stop stating specualtion as fact...

It doesn't take a lot of strength to have a lot of bat speed. What it takes is adjusting to speeds to be able to hit the ball, regardless of what it's velocity is, and having quickness (reaction time) when swinging. That adjusting first comes from seeing the ball, then one has to be able to react physically to swing at the right time (timing... training the brain to tell the body to trigger the swing at the right moment and training the muscles to react), and then one has to connect with the ball. That doesn't require a high amount of strength. Quickness doesn't come from strength.

You are saying that timing doesn't mean much. WHAT? Timing is everything when it comes to hitting a baseball. If you can't adjust to varying speeds very well, you probably won't connect with the ball much. After seeing the ball, connecting with it is the next step. Bat speed determines how much power/energy from the snap of the wrists is added to the swing. One can still connect with the ball even if they don't have a lot of bat speed but have good timing. The ball may not go as far as someone who has more bat speed, but they still can connect with the ball if their timing is on.

Mechanics will affect timing, batspeed, the quality of a hit, power, etc.

"Batspeed is the number one factor, after squaring the ball up of course." Interesting that you say that after saying timing doesn't help much. What do you think "squaring the ball up" is?

There are many factors that influence the power/velocity of a hit and connecting with the ball... not just one or two. First, as I already mentioned, you have to see the ball. Then, you have to be able to react to its velocity at the right moment (timing), then you have to be able to connect with it (timing and mechanics). You may have really good timing and really good bat speed, but if your mechanics are really bad, you probably won't do well. You can have really good mechanics and really good bat speed, but if your timing is way off, you probably won't connect with the ball. You can have really good timing and mechanics and slower bat speed, but you can still connect with the ball and have a good swing, but the ball may not go as far with less bat speed. So, in essence, bat speed is not what determines whether one is able to hit a 90+ mph pitch. It certanily influences it, but it doesn't determine it all by itself, and bat speed isn't determined from strength.

Other factors are just as important. For example, if one holds the bat tightly rather than loosely, it will affect not only the mechanics of one's swing but will also affect one's bat speed. This has nothing to do with strength.

Having quick wrists, however, doesn't equate to being really strong. Learning to use the proper mechanics... having loose, quick wrists and letting your them fly and "throwing" your hands at the ball properly when swinging rather than having tight, inhibiting wrists that don't snap... has way more to do with bat speed than anything does.

As far as velocity of a pitch is concerned, it does influence how far a ball will go... more than you think. Of course, it's not the only determining factor. All the other things I mentioned above also influence that. It's a case of pure physics. If more energy is coming at you when you hit the ball, the ball will jump off the bat with more energy. It's not too hard to figure out.

As far as the MLB home run derby goes, the balls are obviously juiced. If you can't see that, then you are blind. If a guy can hit a home run much farther during the home run derby when the velocity of the pitches is 55-60, why can't he do the same during games? That actually goes against your argument rather than being in favor of it. If bat speed is the number one factor and none of the rest matters that much, then MLB players should be able to hit regular-game home runs the same distance that they hit home-run-derby home runs.

[NotAboutEgo]

Newton's laws of motion...

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton in his work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). The laws form the basis for classical mechanics and Newton himself used them to explain many results concerning the motion of physical objects. In the third volume of the text, he showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Briefly stated, the three laws are:

An object will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless a resultant force acts on it.

The rate of change of momentum of an object is directly proportional to the resultant force acting on it.

For every force acting on an object, the object will exert an equal, yet opposite, force on its cause.


Another excerpt:
The net force on an object is the vector sum of all the forces acting on the object. Newton's first law says that if this sum is zero, the state of motion of the object does not change. Essentially, it makes the following two points:

An object that is not moving will not move until a net force acts upon it.
An object that is in motion will not change its velocity (accelerate) until a net force acts upon it.

This insight leads to Newton's First Law—no force means no acceleration, and hence the body will maintain its velocity.

Common sense tells us that if an object is traveling at a higher velocity than another object and both objects are hit with the same amount of force and speed and under the same conditions (bat speed, how the ball is hit... on the bat and the ball, humidity, etc.), that the ball traveling at the higher initial velocity is going to accelerate at a higher rate than the object traveling at a lower initial velocity.

[NotAboutEgo]

There are a number of inaccuracies here. One, is does take strength to hit a 95 MPH fastball. Specifically, batspeed. Without this batspeed, mechanics and timing do not help that much. In order to consistently hit 90+, you must have batspeed in that area...90+. Two, the difference between throwing in the 70s and 90 is gigantic. The average male throws in the 70s. One in ten thousand can throw 90. That is a huge leap. Finally, the story of seeing a female hitting a 300+ homerun off of a 60 mph,and then specualting that the same swing off of a 90 mph pitch would produce a much farther hit is false. The velocity of the pitch is a much smaller factor than people think in determing exit velocity (and potential distance). Batspeed is the number one factor, after squaring the ball up of course. Why do you think that MLB home run derby produces farther home runs than any during the season? The pitches are only at 55-60 MPH. I understand that you are passionate about women gaining respect and having a place to play, but please stop stating specualtion as fact...

If someone steps in a cage for the first time to hit off a machine that is throwing 80 mph and they don't connect with the ball for a while, does that have to do with bat speed or with timing? You can have the slowest bat speed in the world, but if your timing is right on, you will be able to hit the ball... even if you swing very slowly. If your timing is right on to connect with the ball (point of impact), it doesn't matter what your bat speed is. It also doesn't matter what the velocity of the ball is or where your strength is at. If you can time the moment of impact of the bat hitting the ball, that is all that matters in terms of connecting with the ball.

If that same person stands in the cage until they are able to connect with the ball going 80 mph, what are they doing? They are learning to TIME the moment of impact. Are they going to increase their bat speed while doing that? Maybe and maybe not, but increasing their bat speed is not crucial to whether they learn to and are able to connect with the ball or not. If their bat speed is slower, then they will have to start their swing sooner in order to connect with it compared to someone who has higher bat speed.

Also, did that same person have to increase their strength in order to learn to and be able to impact the ball with the bat? No.

Women could learn to hit a 90+ fastball if they worked on it and trained to do so, since it's not a strength issue.

More and more women who are sprouting up to play baseball can throw in the 70's. Finding those women is becoming more common. The elite of women pitchers, at the present moment, can throw in the 80's. I just played with a woman at the Women's National Championship who easily throws in the 70's, there's one on my current team who can, I've had 3 others on my team in the past who can, and I've seen several others do it. It's not so uncommon. As I said, finding the ones who can do it and who have the talent and skills to play baseball is becoming more common. The more women's baseball develops, the more those women will be found. A 14 year-old girl on one of the teams at the Women's National Championship is said to throw in the 80's.

Nothing is impossible.

[NotAboutEgo]

As far as women being equal to men in sports I'll paraphrase what Mia Hamm said a few years ago after the Women's Soccer tem won the World Cup.

Hamm was asked if she was interested in playing in the MLS. Her response was the reporter didn't understand the difference in men's and women's sports and athletic ability. She said her team that just won the world championship had trouble playing against U19 state championship boys soccer teams in their pre World Cup game schedule.

Now where does a state level U19 team fit in the overall ranking of teams in the world ? It's light years below the MLS. Most of the players will never be good enough to play in the MLS. The MLS is light years below European soccer.

The differences are strength-based and not skill-based. In a hypothetical situation, if women on average did have the same strength and size as men on average, and players of both genders of any sport had the exact same training opportunities and experience, who do you think would be better, and why?

[FindAGap12]

.

Women could learn to hit a 90+ fastball if they worked on it and trained to do so, since it's not a strength issue.


Not at a high level. Not with power. Not with consistency. You've never seen 90, so you wouldn't understand the power necessary to time the pitch correctly. In order to play pro ball, you have to be able to handle the speed comfortably, to time it every time. That's not happening without the necessary strength.

[FindAGap12]

A 14 year-old girl on one of the teams at the Women's National Championship is said to throw in the 80's.

.

More speculation. Said to throw in the 80s? Ridiculous.

[FindAGap12]

Newton's laws of motion...

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton in his work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). The laws form the basis for classical mechanics and Newton himself used them to explain many results concerning the motion of physical objects. In the third volume of the text, he showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Briefly stated, the three laws are:

An object will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless a resultant force acts on it.

The rate of change of momentum of an object is directly proportional to the resultant force acting on it.

For every force acting on an object, the object will exert an equal, yet opposite, force on its cause.


Another excerpt:
The net force on an object is the vector sum of all the forces acting on the object. Newton's first law says that if this sum is zero, the state of motion of the object does not change. Essentially, it makes the following two points:

An object that is not moving will not move until a net force acts upon it.
An object that is in motion will not change its velocity (accelerate) until a net force acts upon it.

This insight leads to Newton's First Law—no force means no acceleration, and hence the body will maintain its velocity.

Common sense tells us that if an object is traveling at a higher velocity than another object and both objects are hit with the same amount of force and speed and under the same conditions (bat speed, how the ball is hit... on the bat and the ball, humidity, etc.), that the ball traveling at the higher initial velocity is going to accelerate at a higher rate than the object traveling at a lower initial velocity.


OK, you googled newton's law and cut and pasted it. The farthest HR in MLB this year was 476 feet, by Chris Young The farthest home run in the 2007 Home Run Derby was 504 feet, by Vladimir Guerrero. Can you explain how Guerrero is able to hit the ball 504 feet against a pitch traveling approximatley 60 MPH, yet no one can take a 90+ fastball that far during the 10.000 plus pitches thrown in MLB this year? What do you think it's a linear relationship? That a 300 fot fly ball against a 60 MPH pitch could be a 450 bomb against 90?

I am all for female athletics. I also believe that woman should play Baseball over fastpitch. But you insulting the level of play in professional baseball. If Ila Borders was a male, she would have been laughed at by going to a pro tryout with a 78 MPH fastball. Every HS in America has at least 3 of those. There are thousands of players who are 85+ who are not good enough to play at that level.

[NotAboutEgo]

Not at a high level. Not with power. Not with consistency. You've never seen 90, so you wouldn't understand the power necessary to time the pitch correctly. In order to play pro ball, you have to be able to handle the speed comfortably, to time it every time. That's not happening without the necessary strength.

Everything you have said here about women not being able to hit a 90+ mph pitch is pure speculation. If women can learn to hit an 80+ mph pitch, what makes you think they wouldn't be able to hit a 90+ mph pitch (other than insecurity that keeps you from having an open mind and having logic)?

Again, you don't need strength to time a ball. Power is NOT critical to being able to see a ball and focus on it and then time the moment of impact to put the bat on the ball.

If you think power is what is critical to being able to time a pitch, how do you explain bunting... because in bunting, you don't swing the bat at all and the bat barely moves, so how does power/strength factor into that? It's a matter of eye/brain/hand coordination and focus of the mind and believing in yourself to learn to do so. Power has absolutely NOTHING to do with making contact with a ball.

Again, one can learn to time pitches. If women had a reason to train to be able to hit a 90+ mph pitch, then they'd do it. Since there's no reason to do it now, other than to prove that we can do it or if something decides to throw some loot at us, why should we waste our time?

[NotAboutEgo]

Not at a high level. Not with power. Not with consistency. You've never seen 90, so you wouldn't understand the power necessary to time the pitch correctly. In order to play pro ball, you have to be able to handle the speed comfortably, to time it every time. That's not happening without the necessary strength.

Actually, I have seen 90 in a hitting cage before, so I know what it's like... and, I was able to start making contact with the ball... fouling it off. So, if I would have practiced enough in that cage, I would have learned to hit the ball. But, since there was no reason for me to continue practicing to be able to do so, I didn't continue. I did it to see what would happen... if I could make contact.

At that same facility, there was a curve ball cage. Those of us on the women's team at the time starting practicing in that cage, since we face curve balls in games. Some of us didn't do so hot at first, but we learned how to hit them.

I suppose you don't believe women can hit curve balls, either.

You shouldn't speculate on something you don't know about.

[NotAboutEgo]

OK, you googled newton's law and cut and pasted it. The farthest HR in MLB this year was 476 feet, by Chris Young The farthest home run in the 2007 Home Run Derby was 504 feet, by Vladimir Guerrero. Can you explain how Guerrero is able to hit the ball 504 feet against a pitch traveling approximatley 60 MPH, yet no one can take a 90+ fastball that far during the 10.000 plus pitches thrown in MLB this year? What do you think it's a linear relationship? That a 300 fot fly ball against a 60 MPH pitch could be a 450 bomb against 90?

I am all for female athletics. I also believe that woman should play Baseball over fastpitch. But you insulting the level of play in professional baseball. If Ila Borders was a male, she would have been laughed at by going to a pro tryout with a 78 MPH fastball. Every HS in America has at least 3 of those. There are thousands of players who are 85+ who are not good enough to play at that level.

I like to find references to certain things rather than pulling them out of my behind, so of course I found Newton's laws of motion and copied and pasted them. It was to prove a point.

As I already stated, if deeper home runs can be hit during the homerun derby than can be hit during the regular MLB season, it says that something has changed to make that possible. Do guys hit record-shattering homers during BP? Rarely, if at all. I've seen enough of BP to know that. So, what do you think changes during the homerun derby to allow such deep homeruns? Juiced balls... maybe? Why do you think they have a homerun derby? It's all marketing so MLB can make even more money... and what sells the most? Homeruns. What you have said about the distances of such homeruns tells it all.

Also, I've never used specifics about exactly how much further a ball would travel if being hit off a 90+ mph pitch compared to a 60 mph pitch, because I don't know the answer, and other factors such as temperature, humidity, wind, etc influence that. Common sense tells anyone that it would be hit farther, though.

I'm not insulting pro ball. First of all, many of us who post here are talking about amateur baseball most of the time, yet people like you constantly have to jump to pro ball... constantly comparing women to MLB. Do you even read all of the posts?

Also, unless you've seen a number of women play baseball several times, don't judge anything about it.

About the 14 year-old girl who is said to throw 80, it is specualtion for me, only because I haven't actually witnessed it with my own eyes. But, I won't say it's ridiculous and impossible, because it's not.

[FindAGap12]

Actually, I have seen 90 in a hitting cage before, so I know what it's like... and, I was able to start making contact with the ball... fouling it off. So, if I would have practiced enough in that cage, I would have learned to hit the ball. But, since there was no reason for me to continue practicing to be able to do so, I didn't continue. I did it to see what would happen... if I could make contact.
.


There's a difference between "making contact" and being an effective hitter. An effective hitter will make hard contact on a consistent basis, not just make contact. It is a general rule of thumb that your batspeed must match the speed of the pitch to handle the Pitcher.

[digglahhh]

Not at a high level. Not with power. Not with consistency. You've never seen 90, so you wouldn't understand the power necessary to time the pitch correctly. In order to play pro ball, you have to be able to handle the speed comfortably, to time it every time. That's not happening without the necessary strength.

In order to play MLB pro ball to the level of an eight-figure star that is...

This is not about women taking over the major leagues. Every single thread like this that has been posted in this forum since its inception has served as a stunning display of willful ignorance to its premise.

Would an investment in the infrastructure of women's baseball coupled with a tempering of the inclination to steer female athletes interested in baseball toward softball result in an improvement in women's baseball? The answer to that question is a virtually inarguable yes. Would this brand of game be compelling enough to a prospective fanbase/audience that it would allow it's participants to derive a living from playing the game, thereby making them professionals? I dunno.

Don't respond off the cuff, unless you are going to accompany your response with a diatribe about your accomplishments as a market researcher. If you are going to reply, give pause to think about many of the pseudo-athletic events that have staked out sustainable (and in some cases lucrative) markets. Professional poker players, blackjack players, video-gamers, competitive eaters, lawnmower racers, skateboarders, and on and on and on...

If at any point in your responding to the post, you get a mental image of a female ballplayer digging in against Johan Santana, go back to the drawing board and think about the subject again.

[FindAGap12]

I

As I already stated, if deeper home runs can be hit during the homerun derby than can be hit during the regular MLB season, it says that something has changed to make that possible. Do guys hit record-shattering homers during BP? Rarely, if at all. I've seen enough of BP to know that. So, what do you think changes during the homerun derby to allow such deep homeruns? Juiced balls... maybe? Why do you think they have a homerun derby? It's all marketing so MLB can make even more money... and what sells the most? Homeruns. What you have said about the distances of such homeruns tells it all.
.

What has changed is the speed of the bat at impact. Players are not worried about the possibilty of breaking balls, so they can cheat a bit and generate more batspeed. In a game they may swing at 90 to effectively time the pitch, in the derby they can "dial it up" to 95 because timing is not difficult. As I previously stated, batspeed is the number one factor in determing ball distance. Pitch speed is a minute factor that may add a few percentag points.

So MLB juiced the balls? You're claiming that the organizer of the derby specifically had a batch of balls made up with a higher coefficient of restituition? He knew excatly how to get that done? You're full of gossip, huh?

[NotAboutEgo]

What has changed is the speed of the bat at impact. Players are not worried about the possibilty of breaking balls, so they can cheat a bit and generate more batspeed. In a game they may swing at 90 to effectively time the pitch, in the derby they can "dial it up" to 95 because timing is not difficult. As I previously stated, batspeed is the number one factor in determing ball distance. Pitch speed is a minute factor that may add a few percentag points.

So MLB juiced the balls? You're claiming that the organizer of the derby specifically had a batch of balls made up with a higher coefficient of restituition? He knew excatly how to get that done? You're full of gossip, huh?

Funny how you ignore people, like Digglahhh, who come at you directly. Are you able to answer specific comments and questions directly? You seem to banter about your philosophies instead.

Players generate more bat speed during homerun derbies? Is this documented fact or is it fiction? I find it hard to believe.

Jeez... when players have gotten caught with cork in their bats and taking banned substances to bulk up even when they've been caught before and taking drugs and doing who knows what else... it's not hard to figure out how to juice a ball. MLB is such a non-scandulous, non-prejudiced, fair-in-every-way organization and non-good ole' boys network.

Like I said, homeruns sell.

[captlid]

what aspect of the women's game would attract people to shell their hard earned money out? Since as we know homeruns sell. I have yet to see any girl or woman hit a ball 400 feet with wood! Irregardless of how fast the pitch was coming at her. (Have seen a few hit the ball about 360 with aluminum though.)

I can think of a few things to make the game of baseball more interesting to watch on tv.

[Macker]

So MLB juiced the balls? You're claiming that the organizer of the derby specifically had a batch of balls made up with a higher coefficient of restituition? He knew excatly how to get that done?

The balls used in the derbies are not the same balls used in the regular season. At least they weren't when the ASG was held in Boston a few years ago, a WBZ reporter retreived one of the balls. An MIT professor examined the ball and found it was different than a ball used in a regular game. MLB admitted the balls were different.

[NotAboutEgo]

what aspect of the women's game would attract people to shell their hard earned money out? Since as we know homeruns sell. I have yet to see any girl or woman hit a ball 400 feet with wood! Irregardless of how fast the pitch was coming at her. (Have seen a few hit the ball about 360 with aluminum though.)

I can think of a few things to make the game of baseball more interesting to watch on tv.

First of all, you're talking about amateur women's baseball compared to MLB. Until women have something similar... a pro women's league with the same type of infrastructure as men's pro baseball has (from little league to high school to college to the minors and up to MLB)... stop comparing women's baseball to MLB.

Would you watch men's amateur baseball... high school, games from local leagues like MSBL, MSBA, and city leagues on TV? I've never seen any man in an amateur league come close to hitting a 400 foot homerun with a wood bat, either. Haven't even seen it done with aluminum bats for that matter.

I'll watch any baseball if it's not slop baseball... regardless of what age, level, or gender it's about.

[digglahhh]

The balls used in the derbies are not the same balls used in the regular season. At least they weren't when the ASG was held in Boston a few years ago, a WBZ reporter retreived one of the balls. An MIT professor examined the ball and found it was different than a ball used in a regular game. MLB admitted the balls were different.

Thanks, man sans sig!

Findagap, (I will not initial-ize your name for the sake of brevity, as I wouldn't want to accidentally type accidental politically incorrect epithets like the Baseball Prospectus card pages of Kevin Youkilis - check it out, for real... and he's Jewish.) Anyway...

Not to mention that when, for example, Sammy Sosa was caught using a corked bat, his defense was that he had mistakingly used his BP bat. Now, whether anybody is naive enough to believe that this was an accident aside, do you reject the idea that many players may in fact have "batting practice" bats that are not legal in games?

There is also the notion of bat speed versus pitch velocity that you bring up. But there is another angle to it too. You can increase the force with which you make contact with the ball by increasing the weight of the bat. The ounce-age of the bat to the mph of the pitch is far from a one to one ratio. So, when you have a BP speed pitch coming in, you can probably increase the force by sacrificing raw bat speed, but increasing bat mass. Swing a heavier bat. Why did Ruth hit balls documented as further than contemporary sluggers hit them? Especially when so many historical revisionists are quick to quip about a supposed lack of power pitchers in Ruth's day. Could the answer lie somewhere in the fact that he swung a bat about as thick and heavy as Zack Morris's OG cell phone on the high school era Saved by the Bell episodes?... There are multiple values in the equation dictating force. Mass and velocity are both involved. I'm no physicist, so I'll stop at the elementary level.

[digglahhh]

what aspect of the women's game would attract people to shell their hard earned money out? Since as we know homeruns sell. I have yet to see any girl or woman hit a ball 400 feet with wood! Irregardless of how fast the pitch was coming at her. (Have seen a few hit the ball about 360 with aluminum though.)

I can think of a few things to make the game of baseball more interesting to watch on tv.

Why do people watch the LLWS?

Why did people watch American Gladiators?

Why do people watch America's Next Top Model?

If we were left to predict what forms of entertainment would develop strong markets by just random speculation and pre-conceived gender roles, we would have missed out on Who's the Boss!

But seriously, it doesn't have to thrive, it would just have to survive - it would make any ballplayer happy simply to earn a living by doing what they love! Isn't that what all of us really want, dis-irregarless :cool: of gender?

Wouldn't it be great if we could get paid to post at BBF?

We wouldn't all have to be as good as me to do it. Don't take my word for it, check out My Dog Sparty's signature:happy:

[NotAboutEgo]

Jeez... and what would we do without all the other reality shows? There'd be no quality TV or any TV for that matter without them!!! :think:


"But seriously, it doesn't have to thrive, it would just have to survive - it would make any ballplayer happy simply to earn a living by doing what they love! Isn't that what all of us really want, dis-irregarless of gender?"

Yeah, kind of like the Bloomer Girls and AAGPBL players did! What a concept!

[captlid]

Here's a cool link.
http://faculty.tcc.fl.edu/scma/carrj/Java/baseball4.html

It calculates that the batspeed would have to be at least 105mph to hit a ball 400 feet at an optimum angle of 35 degrees.

It unfortunately doesn't account for the bat's weight. I am assuming at least a 29-32 ounce bat though, considering its a college website.

[FindAGap12]

Here's a cool link.
http://faculty.tcc.fl.edu/scma/carrj/Java/baseball4.html

It calculates that the batspeed would have to be at least 105mph to hit a ball 400 feet at an optimum angle of 35 degrees.

It unfortunately doesn't account for the bat's weight. I am assuming at least a 29-32 ounce bat though, considering its a college website.

Actually, it's the ballspeed that must be 105. Totally different than batspeed.

[captlid]

I am assuming that your bat has to travel at approximately the same speed to generate that kind of ball speed?
Similar concept to throwing a baseball. Hand has to travel 100mph for the ball to do so.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[FindAGap12]

I am assuming that your bat has to travel at approximately the same speed to generate that kind of ball speed?
Similar concept to throwing a baseball. Hand has to travel 100mph for the ball to do so.

Correct me if I am wrong.


It's close, but not exactly. For example, the NCAA testing for bats sets batspeed at 66 MPH and allows a maximum ball speed of 97. So no, they are not the same. You would need a minimum barrel speed of about 70 to hit a ball at 105. The tip of the bat is actually going 15-20% faster, and some use this a measurment, so 70 mph barrel is about 90 tip speed.

Same goes for throwing a ball. The hand itself is not capable of traveling high speeds but the fingertips will reach nearly the ball speed, since they are the last body part to propel the ball.

[FindAGap12]

Can women hit homeruns? Of course they can. I've seen women hit balls 300+ feet, and that's off pitchers throwing in the mid-60's. Just think of how much further the ball would go if a woman was hitting a 90+ mph pitch.
.

Let's go back to this original quote. What I take from this quote is that NotAboutEgo thinks a baseball is travel MUCH farther if the incoming pitch is faster. My Home Run Derby analogy shoots a hole in that theory.

I have a lot of experience measuring velocities, batspeeds, etc. I work at a batting cage, and I own a SpeedCheck radar, a device that can measure batspeed and ball speed. One of my favorite games is to see how hard you can hit a ball off of a tee. Put the Radar behind a net, hit it into the net as hard as you can, etc. Off of a tee, my high is 102. Usually, I'll top at about 95. So with 0 MPH of ball speed, I can hit the ball nearly 100 MPH. I did not hit many Homeruns over 400 feet in my day, so the 105 MPH necessary to hit the ball 400 feet is about my max off live pitching. This should give you an idea of how small of a factor pitch speed is in determining impact velocity.

[NotAboutEgo]

Let's go back to this original quote. What I take from this quote is that NotAboutEgo thinks a baseball is travel MUCH farther if the incoming pitch is faster. My Home Run Derby analogy shoots a hole in that theory.

I have a lot of experience measuring velocities, batspeeds, etc. I work at a batting cage, and I own a SpeedCheck radar, a device that can measure batspeed and ball speed. One of my favorite games is to see how hard you can hit a ball off of a tee. Put the Radar behind a net, hit it into the net as hard as you can, etc. Off of a tee, my high is 102. Usually, I'll top at about 95. So with 0 MPH of ball speed, I can hit the ball nearly 100 MPH. I did not hit many Homeruns over 400 feet in my day, so the 105 MPH necessary to hit the ball 400 feet is about my max off live pitching. This should give you an idea of how small of a factor pitch speed is in determining impact velocity.

Have you ever witnessed anyone hitting a 400 foot homerun off a tee?

[NotAboutEgo]

Let's go back to this original quote. What I take from this quote is that NotAboutEgo thinks a baseball is travel MUCH farther if the incoming pitch is faster. My Home Run Derby analogy shoots a hole in that theory.

I have a lot of experience measuring velocities, batspeeds, etc. I work at a batting cage, and I own a SpeedCheck radar, a device that can measure batspeed and ball speed. One of my favorite games is to see how hard you can hit a ball off of a tee. Put the Radar behind a net, hit it into the net as hard as you can, etc. Off of a tee, my high is 102. Usually, I'll top at about 95. So with 0 MPH of ball speed, I can hit the ball nearly 100 MPH. I did not hit many Homeruns over 400 feet in my day, so the 105 MPH necessary to hit the ball 400 feet is about my max off live pitching. This should give you an idea of how small of a factor pitch speed is in determining impact velocity.

You still don't get it that homerun derby balls are juiced.

[NotAboutEgo]

Here is an interesting article that refutes FindAGap's philosophy...

http://www.ebsinstitute.com/Baseball/EBS.crp5df2.html


FUNDAMENTALS
...............................................
Energy in a Collision

Imagine throwing a ball against a wall as hard as you can. What will happen when it hits the wall?

Ball Bounce
Ball Bounces Off Wall


Everyone knows that it will bounce back!

Right?

Anything in motion has kinetic energy---energy of motion. The kinetic energy of the moving ball is converted to potential energy as the ball is squashed into the wall. This potential energy becomes kinetic energy again as the ball springs back into shape and propels itself away from the wall.

The change in the direction of the ball is caused by the elastic nature of the ball itself. Much like a spring, the ball "squashed" itself against the wall then rebounds as it becomes round again.

Now imagine that the wall is moving and has its own kinetic energy. At the moment of collision, the wall transfers some of that energy to the ball.

Now think about hitting a baseball from a tee. All of the energy in this system starts with the batter and is transferred to the bat. Some of the energy in the bat is then transferred to the ball causing it to fly off the tee.

Hitting a baseball that is pitched involves more total energy. The ball has energy and the bat has energy.


Batting from a Tee
Remember the energy that the ball has when you throw it against a wall? It has the same energy when it hits a bat. But a swinging bat adds energy too. The combined energies make hitting a home run easier when a baseball is pitched.

Why are most home runs hit off of fastballs?

Copyright © 2003-2005 Event-Based Science Project
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

Why are most home runs hit off of fastballs?

Gee... could it be that fastballs generally are thrown harder and with less movement than offspeed and breaking pitches?

[NotAboutEgo]

The V of the hit ball = 1/4 V of the pitch and 1 1/4 V of the bat. This is where V= the velocity

Vf=.25Vp+1.25Vb

The above equation represents that the resulting velocity (Vf) = quarter of the velocity of the pitch (.25Vp) added to 1 and a quarter of the bat speed (1.25Vb)

[NotAboutEgo]

It seems that sources say the pitch speed DOES matter.

The Scientific Slugger imitates a ball being hit perfectly by a major league player.

In order to see what makes a home run, try adjusting the strength of your swing and the angle at which the ball leaves bat. You can also vary the pitch speed to create more complex combinations. Try changing one variable at a time, and notice what happens.

The distance a baseball travels depends on two primary factors: the angle at which the ball leaves the bat, and how fast the ball is hit. The speed of the ball depends on both the speed of the pitch and the speed of the bat. If the bat is standing still and the ball hits it, the ball will bounce off the bat with most, but not all, of the pitch speed. (Some of the energy is wasted in the friction of deforming the ball, making a sound, etc.) If the ball is standing still and is hit by the bat, it's given a good portion of the bat's speed. Combine the two and you can see that a pitched ball hitting a swinging bat gains a good portion of the sum of both the pitch and the bat speed.


What's going on?

Gravity is always pulling downwards on the ball. If you hit the ball straight up, it spends quite a bit of time in the air, but doesn't travel far from home plate. If you hit the ball horizontally, as in a line drive, the ball moves away from home plate at maximum velocity, but quickly hits the ground because of gravity -- still not very far from home plate. To maximize your hitting distance, you need to have both a high horizontal velocity AND you need to keep the ball in the air for a longer time. You can do this by hitting the ball at an upward angle.

If there were no air resistance (that is, if a ball didn't have to make its way through the air on its way out of the park), the ball would travel nearly twice as far. Air resistance depends on humidity, temperature, and altitude: To make a ball go farther, you want high humidity, high temperature, and high altitude. The Scientific Slugger is set for constant air resistance based on zero humidity, at 56 degrees Fahrenheit, all played at sea level.

[FindAGap12]

Here is an interesting article that refutes FindAGap's philosophy...

http://www.ebsinstitute.com/Baseball/EBS.crp5df2.html

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

Why are most home runs hit off of fastballs?

Gee... could it be that fastballs generally are thrown harder and with less movement than offspeed and breaking pitches?

Uhh, most homeruns are hit of Fastballs, because Fastballs make up 70% of all pitches thrown.
Actually, there is a study online that claims that curveballs are optimal to hitting homeuns, because it is easier to convert their spin into backspin, which provides a slight add in distance. I'll find it later.

So, Tim Wakefield throwing a 66 MPH Knuckleball, gives up a 400+ ft home run ...
http://hittingillustrated.com/library/Bonds748a.gif

Must have been 600 feet if it was a fastball, huh?

[FindAGap12]

Here we go...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5086320/default.asp

Why hitting curveballs scores more homers

By SHARON BEGLEY

With Memorial Day upon us, scientists' thoughts turn to summer sports, and what could be more summer-y than Frisbee and baseball?

Conventional wisdom in baseball holds that, everything else (such as the speed of the bat and how solidly it connects) being equal, a fastball is more likely to be smacked for a home run than a curveball is. But when University of California, Davis, engineering professor Mont Hubbard and his colleagues modeled all the forces on a batted ball, they found that, in baseball as in politics, it's the spin that matters _ and conventional wisdom, in this case at least, is wrong.

When a curveball leaves the pitcher's fingers it has topspin, which means the top of the ball rotates in the direction of flight (toward the plate). Fastballs, in contrast, have backspin, with the bottom of the ball rotating in the direction of flight. Topspin causes a ball to experience a downward force, because the rotation changes the distribution of air pressure around the ball so there is more pressing down on the ball than up. Hence curveballs' habit of suddenly plunging, to batters' dismay. Backspin, in contrast, generates an upward force, somewhat like the one that keeps an airplane aloft, which is why a fastball rises unless the pitcher gives it a countervailing spin.

When the bat makes contact, the most obvious thing it does is reverse the ball's direction, so it heads toward the field rather than the plate. But contact also changes the ball's spin. Assuming good contact in each case, a fastball that arrived with backspin therefore leaves with topspin, while a curveball arriving with topspin leaves with additional backspin and thus more home run potential.

"A curveball already has batted backspin," says Prof. Hubbard. "With a fastball, in order to give it backspin and let it benefit from aerodynamics, you have to reverse the spin," which is tough to do. The well-hit curveball heads for the field with more of the kind of spin that gives it fence-clearing lift and distance.

[FindAGap12]

It seems that sources say the pitch speed DOES matter.
.[/I]


It does matter. Maybe a couple of percentage points, 2 or 3. But you tried to claim that women weren't hitting balls at home run distance because the pitches were not fast enough, and that they could off MLB velocity. Not the case, not without the batspeed...

[Charger567]

I don't see why you are debating one concept. OK, you are arguing that women may be strong enough to hit the ball out of a major league ballpark. Let's be real. Your arguement is that if that 60 MPH pitch was 90 it would have gone further. Of course, not 100 feet further, but no doubt further. The problem is, how often can a woman get around on 90 MPH and make solid contact?

I can argue that I've hit balls 300+ feet against 60 mph pitching, and if the pitching was 90 that it would've been a home run. It just doesn't mean much.

Also to diglah:

Do you honestly think people could stand a full season of LL on TV? Do you think people would be willing to follow it? 10 games sure, but 162? Would it not lose your attraction after a month or so?

[NotAboutEgo]

It does matter. Maybe a couple of percentage points, 2 or 3. But you tried to claim that women weren't hitting balls at home run distance because the pitches were not fast enough, and that they could off MLB velocity. Not the case, not without the batspeed...

No, I never ever said that women aren't hitting many homeruns because the pitch speed is too low. I NEVER said that. You have completely misunderstood.

What I said was that there are many women who can hit long balls 300+ feet (contrary to popular belief), and if the pitching was faster in women's baseball, they would hit the ball farther. I said the added pitch velocity would provide more power, whatever that is. That is completely different than saying that women aren't hitting many homeruns because the pitch speed is too low.

[NotAboutEgo]

I don't see why you are debating one concept. OK, you are arguing that women may be strong enough to hit the ball out of a major league ballpark. Let's be real. Your arguement is that if that 60 MPH pitch was 90 it would have gone further. Of course, not 100 feet further, but no doubt further. The problem is, how often can a woman get around on 90 MPH and make solid contact?

I can argue that I've hit balls 300+ feet against 60 mph pitching, and if the pitching was 90 that it would've been a home run. It just doesn't mean much.

Also to diglah:

Do you honestly think people could stand a full season of LL on TV? Do you think people would be willing to follow it? 10 games sure, but 162? Would it not lose your attraction after a month or so?

"I can argue that I've hit balls 300+ feet against 60 mph pitching, and if the pitching was 90 that it would've been a home run. It just doesn't mean much."

That's exactly what I was saying, except for I never mentioned 90 mph anywhere. That is something that you and FindAGap have assumed, because you all jump to comparing women to MLB players. I simply said if the pitching was faster, the ball would go further.

The whole point was to state that women can hit the ball 300+ feet with pitching velocity that's not that high, because so many people are so quick to point out that women are not able to hit the ball very far. That's ALL the comment was for.

And, if women were to practice hitting 90+ mph pitches, they'd be able to do it. But, as I've already stated... if you would have read it... right now, we have no reason to spend our time doing so since we don't face pitching in the 90's.

My team hits off an Iron Mike that throws 80 mph, and we have no problem doing it. There are just a few women who are known to throw in the 80's right now, but we do that because most of the women we face throw in the 60's and 70's... so it keeps us a bit ahead of the average pitching velocity. If the levels and standards of pitching in women's baseball go up, which is logical during development, then we'll start facing higher velocities in practice.

[NotAboutEgo]

Here's an interesting article. It refutes what FindAGap and Charger are saying about pitch velocity not having much at all to do with how far a ball travels when hit... (note that an "optimally hit" curve ball will travel farther than an optimally hit fastball... because of ball spin AND how well the ball is hit and NOT because of a lower velocity).


http://www.biomechanics.bio.uci.edu/_html/nh_biomech/curveball/curve.htm

"A Fly in the Curveball

As the 103rd Major League baseball season opens,
physicists have now shown that a well-hit curveball
trumps a well-hit fastball. Pitchers must be so scared.

By Adam Summers ~ Illustrations by Patricia J. Wynne

There is a morbid fascination in watching a Little League pitcher who develops a good curveball at a tender age; more than one talented young fastball hitter has switched to basketball after facing that aerodynamic phenomenon, which can turn the most powerful swing into physical comedy. Some youngsters find the rhythm of this evasive pitch and learn to hit it with the same authority as they do a fastball. But for most batters (even at the highest levels of competition) the curve is a devil to hit-not quite as bad as trying to swat a flying mosquito with a toothpick, but almost.

Conventional baseball wisdom has long held that even if the bat does meet the curveball, the batter is still at a disadvantage; many observers maintain that even if a batter manages to crush both curveball and fastball with equal force on the sweet spot of the bat, the curveball won't sail as far as the fastball. But that clubhouse conviction has now fallen victim to a careful analysis of the physics of pitched baseballs. It turns out that good wood on a slow curve will carry the ball deeper into the cheap seats than it will Roger Clemens's best fastball.

As a boy I never got beyond the "keep your eye on the ball" stage of hitting, which led to a pretty abbreviated career in organized baseball. But now that engineers Gregory S. Sawicki of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Mont Hubbard of the University of California, Davis, and William J. Stronge of the University of Cambridge have shown what it takes to accomplish the task, I don't feel so bad about my early retirement. To get the job done in the batter's box, they show, "all" the batter has to do is integrate at least fifteen variables and constants that define several physical characteristics of the bat, the ball, the atmosphere, and the world at large.

Hubbard and his colleagues have built a computerized model that gives a fascinating account of the dynamic between pitcher and batter. Standing just sixty feet, six inches away from home plate, the pitcher delivers a ball that may move at more than ninety miles an hour and spin at more than 1,900 revolutions per minute.

Of course, different pitches arrive at wildly different speeds and spins. A fastball can cross the plate in excess of a hundred miles an hour; expert pitchers can throw one with a backspin that exceeds 1,800 revolutions per minute. (In backspin, the top of the ball spins away from the direction the ball is traveling.) The curveball, by contrast, travels toward the batter at a far more sedate seventy miles an hour, but it can have topspin (the reverse of backspin) that exceeds 1,900 revolutions per minute.

The reason a curveball curves is that its spin drags a layer of air across one surface of the ball faster than it does across the opposite surface. Where air moves faster, its density is lower, and the difference in the density of the air surrounding the spinning ball pushes, or "lifts," the ball toward the lower-density air. Thus the backspin on a fastball causes the air on top of the ball to move faster and the air on the bottom to move slower; the net effect is to push the ball up. The topspin on a curveball pushes the ball down.

Physics of an optimally batted ball shows that the longest home runs should come off curveball pitches.

Of course, the faster a ball moves, the greater its kinetic energy: a fast fastball brings more energy to the collision between bat and ball than a slower fastball does, and so the well-hit fast fastball travels farther. A swing that sends a fifty-five-mile-an-hour fastball 410 feet would smack an eighty-five-mile-an-hour burner an extra thirty feet. Similarly, higher bat speed yields better distance. An extra mile an hour in bat speed translates to an extra seven and a half feet on the ground.

But the usual difference in speed between fastball and curveball pitches still doesn't mean that batters should hit fastballs farther than curveballs. The real keys to distance are two related variables: the spin of the hit ball and the undercut of the bat. When the bat hits the ball, the spin of the ball changes dramatically. Its final spin velocity depends on its initial speed and spin, the speed of the bat, and the undercut, which is the vertical distance between the centers of mass of the bat and the ball.

Undercut has a big effect on the ball's spin, and thus on the distance the batted ball travels. With a level swing, a ninety-four-mile-an-hour fastball hit with a half-inch undercut scarcely spins at all, and travels only about 160 feet. Increasing the undercut to roughly an inch, though, increases the spin to 1,800 revolutions per minute and sends the ball 390 feet. Curiously, swing angle has a much smaller effect on flight distance than undercut distance has. If the undercut is correct, even swinging slightly down on the ball will send it 390 feet. That's often long enough for a home run.

Perhaps the most counterintuitive result of the engineers' model is that an optimally hit seventy-eight-mile-an-hour curveball travels about 455 feet. In contrast, the same hit off a ninety-four-mile-an-hour fastball carries 442 feet, thirteen feet less. Spin makes all the difference. The initial backspin of the fastball is abruptly reversed by the undercut of the bat, whereas the initial topspin of the curveball is augmented by the bat. The net result is that the batted curveball spins some 800 revolutions per minute faster than the batted fastball, and that extra spin provides a bit more lift as the curveball sails out of the park.

So even if some precocious master of the curveball manages to make most of his opponents look bad, he'd better be careful. A pitcher never knows when the next player with the great eyes of Ted Williams will show up to demonstrate what a curveball hitter can really do.

Adam Summers (asummers@uci.edu) is an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine."

[digglahhh]

Have you ever witnessed anyone hitting a 400 foot homerun off a tee?

Yes. I believe his name was Tiger Woods!

[digglahhh]

Also to diglah:

Do you honestly think people could stand a full season of LL on TV? Do you think people would be willing to follow it? 10 games sure, but 162? Would it not lose your attraction after a month or so?

I don't know. But again, all it needs to stake out is a niche market.

[sandlot]

I've been thinking about this topic and reading all the posts. I think there are actually several threads -- lines of thought, really -- wound inside one thread. One has to do with playing. Another is observing. A third is "objective" performance.

Playing is the most distinct grouping. NABE, if I may shorten her handle, is almost singlehandedly carrying the load on this point. As I see it, she's looking at it from the point of view of the person who wants to play, feels she has the right to play, and wants to find out how far her talent could take her and what accomplishments she could achieve if the possibility of professional play existed. This desire is independent of whether a league is feasible, etc., etc. It's asking the question: What level of play might be achievable if there existed a goal that a woman could aim for? This is by definition subjective, because it has to do with dream, desire, will and individual talent. And no one knows what might happen because at present the goal does not exist.

Observing is a separate kettle of fish. What would we as potential fans want to watch, if the WMLB existed? Some people would want to watch just because it's baseball and that's enough. Others would view the game on its own terms and compare like against like. Still others would go to see how the level of play compares with MLB. Those who just love baseball, any baseball, would be content. Those who want to see the best female players competing against the best females would be content. But those who compare the play to MLB would probably be discontent because they would not be comparing like to like.

This leads to "objective" performance, and that's what all of the statistics kept in baseball seek to enumerate. The typical fan loves the perfect game, the no-hitter, pitchers who throw multiple K's, fastballs that reach 90 or 95 or 100 mph, home runs, long home runs and even longer home runs. When it comes to the long ball, fans think length is important. Over the fence is great, top tier is greater, out of the park is awesome -- even though each counts for the same one run. Players who accomplish these feats are feted, even idolized. Fans whose appreciation is performance-based, using these sorts of criteria, are unlikely to support WMLB. I put the word "objective" in quotation marks because these are not, in fact, objective criteria; we measure only what we choose to measure, and value only what we choose to value, and these are subjective decisions.

People like NABE are constantly butting heads with the performance-based crowd and having to make an argument that maybe women could do this or that, if given the chance, when what they really want to do is just play and see what happens over time. Which is, of course, exactly how baseball has developed.

This discussion is not subjective vs. objective, it is subjective vs. subjective. It's important that those who stress the performance aspects -- speed, distance, power -- realize that theirs is also a subjective position. It makes the whole debate clearer. What do you choose to value?

On the material level, the questions arises: Would people pay for it? I think the answer will only be there if it's tried, but I suspect it would be an uphill battle because the playing field of values in not level. It is skewed to the performance over the playing, the "objective" over the subjective. But if women's baseball proved to be as much fun to watch as women's soccer or women's tennis, why not?

Women's baseball needs to develop icons. Current ones. If it were up to me, I'd be pushing -- hard -- to have women's baseball be made an Olympic sport. That was the big breakthrough for women's soccer. Nationalism creates an instant fan base, and a lot of fans would root for women players on that basis. That could carry over into professional play, and attract potential investors and advertisers. Nation-based competitions can be a real stepping stone -- just ask Dice-K. Until a woman breaks into the majors and earns a spot, which seems a long way off, this might be the way to go.

[NotAboutEgo]

I've been thinking about this topic and reading all the posts. I think there are actually several threads -- lines of thought, really -- wound inside one thread. One has to do with playing. Another is observing. A third is "objective" performance.

Playing is the most distinct grouping. NABE, if I may shorten her handle, is almost singlehandedly carrying the load on this point. As I see it, she's looking at it from the point of view of the person who wants to play, feels she has the right to play, and wants to find out how far her talent could take her and what accomplishments she could achieve if the possibility of professional play existed. This desire is independent of whether a league is feasible, etc., etc. It's asking the question: What level of play might be achievable if there existed a goal that a woman could aim for? This is by definition subjective, because it has to do with dream, desire, will and individual talent. And no one knows what might happen because at present the goal does not exist.

Observing is a separate kettle of fish. What would we as potential fans want to watch, if the WMLB existed? Some people would want to watch just because it's baseball and that's enough. Others would view the game on its own terms and compare like against like. Still others would go to see how the level of play compares with MLB. Those who just love baseball, any baseball, would be content. Those who want to see the best female players competing against the best females would be content. But those who compare the play to MLB would probably be discontent because they would not be comparing like to like.

This leads to "objective" performance, and that's what all of the statistics kept in baseball seek to enumerate. The typical fan loves the perfect game, the no-hitter, pitchers who throw multiple K's, fastballs that reach 90 or 95 or 100 mph, home runs, long home runs and even longer home runs. When it comes to the long ball, fans think length is important. Over the fence is great, top tier is greater, out of the park is awesome -- even though each counts for the same one run. Players who accomplish these feats are feted, even idolized. Fans whose appreciation is performance-based, using these sorts of criteria, are unlikely to support WMLB. I put the word "objective" in quotation marks because these are not, in fact, objective criteria; we measure only what we choose to measure, and value only what we choose to value, and these are subjective decisions.

People like NABE are constantly butting heads with the performance-based crowd and having to make an argument that maybe women could do this or that, if given the chance, when what they really want to do is just play and see what happens over time. Which is, of course, exactly how baseball has developed.

This discussion is not subjective vs. objective, it is subjective vs. subjective. It's important that those who stress the performance aspects -- speed, distance, power -- realize that theirs is also a subjective position. It makes the whole debate clearer. What do you choose to value?

On the material level, the questions arises: Would people pay for it? I think the answer will only be there if it's tried, but I suspect it would be an uphill battle because the playing field of values in not level. It is skewed to the performance over the playing, the "objective" over the subjective. But if women's baseball proved to be as much fun to watch as women's soccer or women's tennis, why not?

Women's baseball needs to develop icons. Current ones. If it were up to me, I'd be pushing -- hard -- to have women's baseball be made an Olympic sport. That was the big breakthrough for women's soccer. Nationalism creates an instant fan base, and a lot of fans would root for women players on that basis. That could carry over into professional play, and attract potential investors and advertisers. Nation-based competitions can be a real stepping stone -- just ask Dice-K. Until a woman breaks into the majors and earns a spot, which seems a long way off, this might be the way to go.

Thanks for your very insightful and intellectual post, Sandlot. You are exactly right.

When those of us women who post about our accomplishments so far in baseball and the development of women's baseball, we are speaking in terms of women's baseball only and the current women's baseball movement... with the highly interrupted history of women's baseball since 1830 and the adversary women have faced during that time up to now in mind.

You couldn't have summarized my point of view any better. That's exactly what I've been trying to say, over and over. And, when someone has those goals in mind and when they spend time and effort honing their talents and skills, they can be capable of a lot more than what the average fan thinks.

I'm also looking at it from a progressive standpoint; meaning, given the right type and amount of opportunties, women could do things that most may not be able to imagine. I don't know if a woman will ever throw 90+ mph, but I'm open minded and don't rule it out; and if it happened some day, it wouldn't surprise me. It is pretty common for women (not all women but a good percentage of them and that percentage is gorwing) to throw in the 70's naturally. Given the proper instruction, experience, and physical conditioning, they could surpass that. It is known within the women's baseball arena that there are a few women who currently play baseball who can hit 80 mph. When I post these things, I'm talking about women's baseball... period... not having anything to do with MLB.

In terms of hitting, women are more than capable of hitting 300+ ft fly balls. Can that be improved upon? Of course. And the more girls and women have playing opportunities and a place to develop their talent and skills and have chances to work with quality instructors, it can happen.

You nailed it right on the head, Sandlot, in terms of what people would want to watch. Not everyone is interested in the same things, and not everyone is only interested in watching MLB and the power game. There people out there who like to see strategy and other skills on the field. My team played at historic Tiger Stadium back in 2001 against a women's all-star team from Toronto, and we had 300+ people watching us. If the game would have been marketed right, there could have been more fans there. I would say that it's a pretty good achievement for something that wasn't highly publicized.

I have a friend who plays pro fast pitch softball in Europe and Australia, and she said they get in upwards of 5,000 fans watching games there (in Europe... not sure about the crowds in Australia). If that is happening for women's fast pitch, women's baseball could draw similar crowds if publicized right and enough and a pro league was developed.

When the naysayers post comparing us to MLB, even when that's not the topic of discussion and the discussion has nothing to do with MLB, that's when the posts get twisted.

For those of us women and girls who play baseball, it IS just about getting the chance to play the game, without having to knock down walls to do so, and then seeing how far it can go... independent of any other leagues.

I agree that women's baseball needs to have current icons. While the AAGPBL was a very important part of women's baseball history, it wasn't the beginning of women's baseball... as organized women's baseball started in 1830, and there were countless teams and leagues way before the AAGPBL existed. People constantly compare us to the AAGPBL players, and as I said, even though that's an important part of the history, people should focus on what's happening now and what could happen in the future.

Actually, the work has pretty much been done in making women's baseball an Olympic sport. Many people have done the groundwork for it, and the IOC is completely open to women's baseball being an Olympic sport. The committee doesn't consider baseball and softball to be the same (as no one should). The key issue to this happening is if baseball will become part of the Olympics again. Word is that if the IOC approves women's baseball as an Olympic sport, it will happen in 2012.

The Women's Baseball World Championship already exists (it was first sanctioned by the IBAF in 2004 and USA Baseball started sanctioning a national U.S. women's team that year), and international women's baseball competition in the modern times started way before that. Several organizers worked for several years to create those opportunities for women, and a couple of the competitions evolved into what is now the Women's Baseball World Championship.

If a woman (meaning more than one, if they exist) exists who is good enough to play in MLB, she should be allowed to. Currently, there is still a ban on women playing in MLB. If, as the naysayers love to constantly point out, women aren't good enough to compete at this level, then it's an oxymoron to keep the ban in effect. Open the doors, and see what happens. No one will know until it does.

[digglahhh]

Great post, Sandlot - as always.

I look forward to the day when such insights are no longer largely, in vain.

[RightEGirl]

Hi there to all!

I've been reading (with great interest) all of the posts. There is some fascinating discussion going on here, and I LOVE the fact that we're discussing WOMEN'S Baseball!

Okay... now...regarding the discussion about hitting homers:

Recently I hit a ball at the Women's World Series down the LF line (330') to the warning track, where it apparently hopped over the fence for a ground rule double. I could certainly argue that maybe with a little less angle on the ball or with a little less wind blowing in, the thing would have gone out, and of course I would have loved for it to have. I also hit a number of balls to the warning track in BP in Holland where I also played baseball, but with a men's team. I not only play women's baseball, but also play fastpitch softball internationally and on pro contract. My bat speed is good, and because of the smaller reaction times in fastpitch (.3 seconds to acquire the ball and decide to swing or not at about 64-68 mph from 43' as compared to .4 -.5 for baseball, .4 seconds being for a 95 mph fastball), I often have to slow my timing (but not my swing) to address the ball correctly. I can say, absolutely, positively that for me, on the borderline of hitting them out of the park, a little extra pitch velocity would be nice! I agree that bat speed is extremely important, and someone with slow bat speed is not likely to ever hit one out, but I do maintain that pitche velocity is what gives you that little extra distance if you're on the edge. When I hit the ball to the Warning Track recently, it was off a pitch that was unlikely above 50 mph. I think giveneven a pitch at 60 or 65, the thing would have made it. Would I have hit one to the 405' CF fence? Nope...I'm not hitting that far yet, but I hope to as I continue to work on my swing, eye, hands, etc.
In softball, I can say that pitch speed makes a huge difference. I hit with a light (by baseball standards, but heavy by fastpitch standards), 26 oz/34" composite bat. It's state of the art, and I train very, very hard, working on bat speed and all the hitting fundamentals as well as advanced techniques. In Holland this last year in softball, I hit 7 balls that either hit the fence on the fly or fell within 1 foot of the bottom of the fence. This was on fields that were regulation 220'-230' (And yes, I hit some out as well). In every case of the ball not clearing the fence, the number one factor was reduced pitch speed. Again, these were balls that were marginal...close to going out...not towering shots to 400' or something.
So, my opinion is that pitch speed DOES matter, but it must be combined with strength (yes, I spend a LOT of time in the gym), a good eye, quick hands and the use of the whole body (hips are especially important). All of these things can be taught and learned by female ballplayers. In general, our strength may not (on average) be equal to that of the average male of similar body size or composition, BUT, we can strengthen ourselves and work hard to where we CAN exceed many men's player's strength levels, and certainly to the point that we can add strength with skill to hit balls out of regulation Major/Minor stadiums on a regular basis. I think I'm pretty close, and will be continuing to work on my skills for next season and a run at the National Team.

Thanks for reading, and I appreciate your thoughtful replies and civil discussion.

[Charger567]

Well I do see Sandlot's point, I have to say thats not what you've been arguing. For the first 2 pages you kept saying women could be as good as men. Only recently have you shifted your arguement.

This is all I would disgree with.

It is pretty common for women (not all women but a good percentage of them and that percentage is gorwing) to throw in the 70's naturally.
It isn't even all that common for an average man to be able to throw 70's naturally. Shouldn't women easily surpass men if they have the ability to throw so much harder with natural ability?

[NotAboutEgo]

Well I do see Sandlot's point, I have to say thats not what you've been arguing. For the first 2 pages you kept saying women could be as good as men. Only recently have you shifted your arguement.

This is all I would disgree with.

It isn't even all that common for an average man to be able to throw 70's naturally. Shouldn't women easily surpass men if they have the ability to throw so much harder with natural ability?

I said that women who play baseball, on average, are just as good as and some are better than men who play in amateur leagues like MSBL and city leagues and others (meaning there are plenty of women out there who can compete with men and who do very successfully). I never have shifted my argument on that. That's where my posts started beyond giving info on the current status of the MLB ban on women and a little bit of history that contributes to why there isn't a WMLB. I never said they are just as good as and better than MLB players... which is what you and FindAGap have been saying all along... because you can't seem to see the difference between the two and can't get away from comparing current women players to MLB players. Re-read the posts and re-think the topic before you post.

People need to stop comparing women's baseball and women players to MLB players when talking about such topics, because, as so many of us have stated on here before, it's an uneven ground for women since we have never had anything close to what MLB players have... while in MLB and leading up to that starting from little league.

I also said that there quite a few women, who currently are playing, who can throw in the 70's naturally, and it's becoming more common (they aren't that hard to find and aren't rare like most people think). I never said the majority of women who are playing can throw in the 70's. I simply said there are many who are throwing in the 70's, and they are becoming more common.

[digglahhh]

RightEGirl,

Good to hear from you. Just for clarification, when you talk about hitting balls to the warning track in hardball, are you talking with wood or aluminum/composite/whatever space-age craziness they use to make bat nowadays?

[RightEGirl]

Hi there Digglahh,

Most recently, the ball I hit in the Women's World Series was with a nice, high-tech aluminum/composite bat (which I got turned onto, by the way by my men's team in the MSBL/MABL). Having said that, yes...I have hit 'em to WTD with a wood bat -- just not quite as far and not quite as often -- yet. I love hitting with wood. There's nothing like the feel of it, and the sound? Awesome. I hate the cost though when you break them, or when you FINALLY found the perfect one and you get sawed off. My men's team plays game one with wood and game two of a doubleheader (every Sunday) with metal. I like training with wood also, and it strengthens me for the games in which I can use metal. I grew up playing only with wood bats (played with the boys from age 4-15),s o it's not a huge thing for me...but I do have to strengthen more for wood...no doubt about it. To move the greater mass and accelerate it through the swing requires more muscle. One side effect, I can say (and I don't know if this is true for other players who use both wood and metal alternately) is that I find I get more base hits off wood, in general.

[digglahhh]

Thanks for the response.

I figured I'd ask you about it cordially, before one of the "gotcha-philes" pounces and asks it derisively. I appreciate your honesty.

Again, whether a woman can consistently hit a baseball 350 feet is irrelevant to how deserving they are of opportunities, and certainly not a prerequisite for me to support the idea of women's professional baseball.

Thanks for your prompt and honest response. Welcome to BBF, hope you stick around. This place is a sausage-fest...

[captlid]

I find it easier to hit baseballs than softballs... Also experienced the same phenomena with metal vs wood... I find it easier to hit with wood than metal? Anyone want to explain why that is the case? :D

Where do you play fastpitch professionally? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

[NotAboutEgo]

I find it easier to hit baseballs than softballs... Also experienced the same phenomena with metal vs wood... I find it easier to hit with wood than metal? Anyone want to explain why that is the case? :D

Where do you play fastpitch professionally? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

My guess about it being easier to hit with wood vs. metal for some people is that you get a truer feeling off a wood bat. With the vibration of the metal and because the material is harder, you don't feel the hits so much and the feeling isn't as true. The ball pops off the metal way more than it does off wood.

The former pro's I've worked with say to use wood bats while taking BP and to put white tape around the sweet spot of the barrel. This shows you where you've hit most of the balls (you can see how many times you've hit the ball off the sweet spot), and you get more of a feeling from it when you hit the ball. Plus, you have to focus on your timing more so you can hit it with the barrel. The former pro's say it makes you a more honest hitter.

[captlid]

I see the ball marks on my black woodie plenty good already!
I thought the tape was too prevent the bat from cracking?

It does take more hand and arm strength to get a woodie going. I know that for sure.

[NotAboutEgo]

I see the ball marks on my black woodie plenty good already!
I thought the tape was too prevent the bat from cracking?

It does take more hand and arm strength to get a woodie going. I know that for sure.

They say to put tape on it so you can see how many times you hit off the sweet spot, and also, it helps you to focus on hitting the ball off that area of the bat. So, you learn to use eye/hand coordination more effectively, and your timing improves. You learn to hit with your eyes since you are focusing on hitting the ball off the bat where the tape is. It forces you to watch the ball come off the bat instead of swinging "blindly".

I used to swing "blindly" (as I call it), because when I'd swing, I didn't look at the ball. I saw the ball come out of the pitcher's hand/out of the machine, but I didn't follow the ball all the way in with my eyes. I'd simply swing and connect with the ball and hit it successfully, but I didn't see the bat make contact with the ball.

Then, one time while I was taking BP, I heard that voice in my mind ask, "How can you hit the ball? You aren't even watching it all the way in. You are swinging but are not looking where you are swinging." That's when I started focusing on watching the ball all the way in and learned to hit "with my eyes". It's something that sort of started happening naturally. I improved as a hitter when I started doing that. Now, I know where the ball is going before it even gets near the plate.

[digglahhh]

I find it easier to hit baseballs than softballs... Also experienced the same phenomena with metal vs wood... I find it easier to hit with wood than metal? Anyone want to explain why that is the case?


Not a case of easier, per se, but by hiting with metal you increase the likelihood of developing bad habits, or at least in inaccurate sense of your own success versus skill. You can miss the sweet spot with metal and still drive the ball a good ways.

When you're young, playing on a non-regulation field and hitting with metal against a pitcher with some velocity, popping the ball over the fence is not necessarily a good indication of hitting the ball really well. It's disillusioning to the young hitter though. In terms of habits and mechanics, I'm thankful, in retrospect, that I was a smallish kid who wasn't blessed with tons of power. While I bemoaned it when I was really young, the good habits I developed by not being tempted to swing for the fences paid dividends, while many of the kids who used physical strength and state-of-the-art bats to compensate for their mechanical shortcomings were exposed as naked emperors as the level of competition improved.

[NotAboutEgo]

Not a case of easier, per se, but by hiting with metal you increase the likelihood of developing bad habits, or at least in inaccurate sense of your own success versus skill. You can miss the sweet spot with metal and still drive the ball a good ways.

When you're young, playing on a non-regulation field and hitting with metal against a pitcher with some velocity, popping the ball over the fence is not necessarily a good indication of hitting the ball really well. It's disillusioning to the young hitter though. In terms of habits and mechanics, I'm thankful, in retrospect, that I was a smallish kid who wasn't blessed with tons of power. While I bemoaned it when I was really young, the good habits I developed by not being tempted to swing for the fences paid dividends, while many of the kids who used physical strength and state-of-the-art bats to compensate for their mechanical shortcomings were exposed as naked emperors as the level of competition improved.

I agree 100%.

[Imgran]

"Little League, Inc. is now considering creating a separate girls' baseball division (stemming from a huge amount of pressure from women's baseball advocates and organizers) to help the growth of girls' baseball. Once this happens, it's going to be a snowball effect. Girls' leagues will grow, and then girls' high school baseball and women's college baseball will be born."

This is already creating discussions about whether or not girls belong on boy's LL baseball teams. I think LL Inc. my have to adjust league boundaries since 200 to 400 girls may not all join baseball teams at once and forget about softball. My local LL would likely field 2 or 3 girls baseball teams per age level and they would play against the nearest LL's.

Whenever you upset the apple cart remember that the attacks are not directed at you personally but on the position you have taken.

Isn't a separate league a step backwards in a way? Separation can equal segregation. It's a decent temporary solution but it can be used to divert the drive for real reform of the real problems. I know there's still a lot of people who don't take the WNBA seriously and it's the best known professional women's league. It doesn't seem to me that a "just for women" league is the right answer to male-only major leagues. It smells like sideways progress to me.

Wouldn't a better way to go be to try talking the Indy leagues into hiring talented women ballplayers? I know MLB scouts the Indy leagues. No one from a major league scouts professional women's sports. They consider it a waste of time (rightly or wrongly). But half of the Indy leagues would do anything for money and to draw fans, and if they thought that women could play well enough to survive in the league surely some of them would be tempted. Someone will eventually bite.

[TonyK]

Isn't a separate league a step backwards in a way? Separation can equal segregation. It's a decent temporary solution but it can be used to divert the drive for real reform of the real problems. I know there's still a lot of people who don't take the WNBA seriously and it's the best known professional women's league. It doesn't seem to me that a "just for women" league is the right answer to male-only major leagues. It smells like sideways progress to me.

Wouldn't a better way to go be to try talking the Indy leagues into hiring talented women ballplayers? I know MLB scouts the Indy leagues. No one from a major league scouts professional women's sports. They consider it a waste of time (rightly or wrongly). But half of the Indy leagues would do anything for money and to draw fans, and if they thought that women could play well enough to survive in the league surely some of them would be tempted. Someone will eventually bite.

You have to find the best way to fill the pipeline if you want WMLB to succeed over the long term. Right now 98% to 99% of the most talented younger girls begin playing both baseball and softball. They switch to softball once middle school arrives.

These girls don't recruit other girls to play on their LL teams. I doubt if many even consider trying out for their middle school baseball team made up of all boys.

Little League has to realize that 200 girls are not going to sign up to play baseball since softball season conflicts with it. But maybe 10 to 20 girls will want to do it once they know the team will be all girls. So those girls can form a team and play against another town's girls. The next step would be for a group of girls and their families to ask their school board for permission to organize a club baseball team.

It can happen if enough girls want to make it happen. I read about the girls high school, travel, and college ice hockey team's seasons every night in my local newspaper. Twenty years ago I doubt if many people would have predicted that Little Janie with the cute pigtails would someday earn a full ride to play ice hockey at a Division 1 school.

[TG Coach]

I know there's still a lot of people who don't take the WNBA seriously and it's the best known professional women's league.

It's because they couldn't beat a good high school boys team. That's the disparity between men's and women's sports.



Wouldn't a better way to go be to try talking the Indy leagues into hiring talented women ballplayers? I know MLB scouts the Indy leagues. No one from a major league scouts professional women's sports. They consider it a waste of time (rightly or wrongly).

Rightly

[Imgran]

You have to find the best way to fill the pipeline if you want WMLB to succeed over the long term. Right now 98% to 99% of the most talented younger girls begin playing both baseball and softball. They switch to softball once middle school arrives.

These girls don't recruit other girls to play on their LL teams. I doubt if many even consider trying out for their middle school baseball team made up of all boys.

Little League has to realize that 200 girls are not going to sign up to play baseball since softball season conflicts with it. But maybe 10 to 20 girls will want to do it once they know the team will be all girls. So those girls can form a team and play against another town's girls. The next step would be for a group of girls and their families to ask their school board for permission to organize a club baseball team.

It can happen if enough girls want to make it happen. I read about the girls high school, travel, and college ice hockey team's seasons every night in my local newspaper. Twenty years ago I doubt if many people would have predicted that Little Janie with the cute pigtails would someday earn a full ride to play ice hockey at a Division 1 school.

I don't want WMLB to succeed. It's just another form of segregation. I want any woman with enough talent to perform at the major league level to have the privellege to do so. Let's draw talented female baseball players right out into the same field as the men. Surely there's at least a handful who can handle it, especially in a sport like baseball where you can survive by being quick and smart even if you're not all that strong.

The best way to crack into that would be for talented female atheletes to tear up the independent leagues before the disbelieving eyes of the scouts that keep tabs on them looking for major league longshots and UDFA's. Sooner or later one would come along with a level of talent that not even the most hidebound scout could ignore.

[captlid]

How do you propose said girls develop their talents? Considering most would refuse to be the only girl on a guy's team. :confused:

So far the highest level a few girls have gotten to is div 3 relief pitcher. And one lady who got her butt handed to her in the Indies..

[Macker]

Surely there's at least a handful who can handle it, especially in a sport like baseball where you can survive by being quick and smart even if you're not all that strong.

This is the problem talented women have. I have no doubt there are a lot of women who are not all that strong, but they are quick and smart. However, there are also a lot of men who are not all that strong who are quick and smart. Those men can't make it either, because there are simply too many talented players who are quick, smart and strong.

[Imgran]

This is the problem talented women have. I have no doubt there are a lot of women who are not all that strong, but they are quick and smart. However, there are also a lot of men who are not all that strong who are quick and smart. Those men can't make it either, because there are simply too many talented players who are quick, smart and strong.

Just because men tend to be stronger on average doesn't mean there aren't plenty of women who could be at least strong enough to be a Chone Figgins or Jacoby Ellsbury type -- and power is often as much about bat speed as it is about hugely proportioned muscles. I have my doubts that NO woman could survive at the MLB level.

As for developing talent -- I'm holding up an ideal. Not a logistically feasible goal. However I went to a high school that had 8 men on their baseball team. I rather suspect that given the option of bringing in a few talented girls who were decent softball players the coach would have gone for it. There's a number of small, marginal high schools that could start creating a precedent, especially in rural areas. The real "problem" is the rival charm of softball, not the lack of available roster spots, somewhere, on some baseball team, for talented girls.

[captlid]

I wanted to know if you had some suggestions on player development for us gals...

[NotAboutEgo]

Just because men tend to be stronger on average doesn't mean there aren't plenty of women who could be at least strong enough to be a Chone Figgins or Jacoby Ellsbury type -- and power is often as much about bat speed as it is about hugely proportioned muscles. I have my doubts that NO woman could survive at the MLB level.

As for developing talent -- I'm holding up an ideal. Not a logistically feasible goal. However I went to a high school that had 8 men on their baseball team. I rather suspect that given the option of bringing in a few talented girls who were decent softball players the coach would have gone for it. There's a number of small, marginal high schools that could start creating a precedent, especially in rural areas. The real "problem" is the rival charm of softball, not the lack of available roster spots, somewhere, on some baseball team, for talented girls.

There are actually thousands of girls around the U.S. who are playing baseball on their high school teams, and the numbers are growing. Many of these girls are getting the opportunity to play because of organizations like the Women's Sports Foundation that is legally fighting the battle of schools denying girls the opportunities to just try out for their school baseball teams.

It would be very easy for females to develop in baseball if we were given the same opportunities and development as guys have. That's a no brainer. The problem is that, since organized baseball began, society has been fighting girls and women who want to play baseball and other sports. The problem in baseball stems from 1830 and still continues today. Women being denied the same opportunities to play other sports stems as far back as the ancient Olympics, and probably even before that.

So, it has always been easy for boys and men (in the U.S., it's always been easy for white Christian boys and men) to participate in sports without being harassed and denied opportunities. However, others, including girls and women, have had to fight since the beginning of time.

I agree with what you are saying, but before any women would be ready to participate in the minors and MLB, a lot more development needs to happen. We need to have the OPEN (meaning, without any form of harassment, without being denied opportunities, etc.) opportunities to play youth baseball, high school baseball, collegiate baseball, Olympic baseball for that to be possible... that, along with MLB rescinding its ban on women playing in its league.

Unfortunately, the gender bias of the past still exists today, especially when it comes to baseball. Stagmnant ideas, attitudes, prejudices, etc. die hard for the most part, and the effects of those last for a long time.

[NotAboutEgo]

I don't want WMLB to succeed. It's just another form of segregation. I want any woman with enough talent to perform at the major league level to have the privellege to do so. Let's draw talented female baseball players right out into the same field as the men. Surely there's at least a handful who can handle it, especially in a sport like baseball where you can survive by being quick and smart even if you're not all that strong.

The best way to crack into that would be for talented female atheletes to tear up the independent leagues before the disbelieving eyes of the scouts that keep tabs on them looking for major league longshots and UDFA's. Sooner or later one would come along with a level of talent that not even the most hidebound scout could ignore.

It's interesting the see how some people think that separate gender leagues and teams is a form of discrimination... when it has to do with women-only and girls-only leagues... but, when men and boys have their own teams and leagues, it's hard for some people to see it as discrimination and segregation.

While I agree that MLB should open its doors to women, at least until there's a women's pro baseball league, I disagree with you that a WMLB would be another form of segregation. Even if MLB opened its doors to women (and that's a HUGE if), it would take quite a while for any woman to train and develop, given the same opportunities that all other MLB players have had, to play at that level. Also, by not having a WMLB, it would be denying a lot more women the opportunity to play pro baseball.

And, most women would prefer playing pro baseball with other women, so are you going to be the one to tell us we can't have a WMLB or something similar, because it would be another form of segregation?

[NotAboutEgo]

Separation is segregation ONLY when certain people, who should be given an opportunity to participate, are denied the opportunity to participate, based on superficial, judgmental means... such as color, spirituality, gender, accent, hair color, the way they dress, the way they talk, etc.

Since there is a size and strength difference, on average, between males and females once they reach a certain age, gender separation of sports at the highest levels, such as in pro sports, makes sense... when size and strength are important factors in a sport... such as in football, hockey, basketball, etc. However, gender separation of sports at levels below pro sports and when size and strength are not much of a factor doesn't make sense. There's no reason for it. Whoever can compete should be able to compete... if making the team is based on tryouts. But, when teams and leagues are rec teams and leagues or aren't based on tryouts, anyone should be able to participate. It's then up to each individual team to find the best talent they can find, if that's what their goal is.

As far as youth baseball goes, I know that most girls prefer to play baseball with other girls. When kids are young, they prefer to socialize and participate in activities with their same gender... and they shouldn't be denied those opportunities. That's part of growing, learning, and experiencing life.

A WMLB would not be denying ANYONE the opportunity to play pro baseball. Men already have their own leagues, so why would it be seen as segregation if women had their own pro leagues? Who would a WMLB be denying?

[NotAboutEgo]

Dictionary.com's definitions of separation and of segregation... different definitions...

Separation
sep·a·ra·tion /ˌsɛpəˈreɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sep-uh-rey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an act or instance of separating or the state of being separated.
2. a place, line, or point of parting.
3. a gap, hole, rent, or the like.
4. something that separates or divides.
5. Law. a. cessation of conjugal cohabitation, as by mutual consent.
b. judicial separation.

6. Aerospace. the time or act of releasing a burned-out stage of a rocket or missile from the remainder.
7. Photography. separation negative.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L séparātiōn- (s. of séparātiō), equiv. to séparāt(us) separate + -iōn- -ion]



Segregation
seg·re·ga·tion /ˌsɛgrɪˈgeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[seg-ri-gey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act or practice of segregating.
2. the state or condition of being segregated: the segregation of private clubs.
3. something segregated.
4. Genetics. the separation of allelic genes into different gametes during meiosis.

Compare law of segregation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1545–55; < LL ségregātiōn- (s. of ségregātiō), equiv. to ségregāt(us) (see segregate) + -iōn- -ion]

—Related forms
seg·re·ga·tion·al, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This seg·re·ga·tion (sěg'rĭ-gā'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.

Genetics The separation of paired alleles or homologous chromosomes, especially during meiosis, so that the members of each pair appear in different gametes.

segregation

noun
1. (genetics) the separation of paired alleles during meiosis so that members of each pair of alleles appear in different gametes
2. a social system that provides separate facilities for minority groups
3. the act of segregating or sequestering; "sequestration of the jury" [ant: desegregation]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

Segregation is wrong when it's used as discrimination.

[TonyK]

The average Japanese male is only 1 to 4 inches taller than the average US female. Japanese ballplayers do succeed in MLB despite size disadvantages.

I would prefer to watch a WMLB game over a women's pro softball game. But I have never watched two good women's baseball teams play one another. I'm like most baseball fans who saw the movie starring Geena Davis about the All American Baseball League. That is all I have to go by.

Would women and girls support a WMLB league?

If those ballplayers could endure scrapes and bruises from having to play in short skirts, then I'm sure today's women ballplayers could handle a 162 game season.

[NotAboutEgo]

The average Japanese male is only 1 to 4 inches taller than the average US female. Japanese ballplayers do succeed in MLB despite size disadvantages.

I would prefer to watch a WMLB game over a women's pro softball game. But I have never watched two good women's baseball teams play one another. I'm like most baseball fans who saw the movie starring Geena Davis about the All American Baseball League. That is all I have to go by.

Would women and girls support a WMLB league?

If those ballplayers could endure scrapes and bruises from having to play in short skirts, then I'm sure today's women ballplayers could handle a 162 game season.

Good comments, Tony. Of course, any movie is not going to be 100% accurate... and it is a movie. I've met and talked with close to 100 of the women who played in the AAGPBL. I played for one of them in a women's baseball tournament in Denver in 2003. They said that a lot of "A League of Their Own" is inaccurate and made up... as is the case with a lot of movies based on true facts.

The women who played in the AAGPBL are just as passionate and tough as anyone else out there. They're very fiesty and have great stories to tell. Many of them have leg and hip problems today because of having to wear skirts while playing baseball. They said most of the time they had bruises, cuts, scrapes, and all kinds of wounds and battle scars from it. They had to get up early in the morning to play and either played 2 games in one day or played and practiced in the same day (can't remember exactly), and therefore, they were out on the field late at night and then had to get up early the next day. Whatever the details are, they said they had a busy, tough schedule... far busier and tougher than the typical MLB schedule. It wasn't a walk through the park.

I know women and girls would support a WMLB. It also takes marketing to support anything... as in TV promotion, magazine and newspaper promotion, merchandise promotion, Internet promotion, etc. Before TV, the average attendance at MLB games was around 5,000 a game... which is what minor league games now draw. Now, the average MLB attendance is probably in the 20,000s per game with some teams averaging in the 30,000s and 40,000s when they are doing well. A while back, I paralleled the rise in attendance at MLB games to the rise in the amount of TVs in American homes. It is obvious to see that the rise in the number of TVs in homes has contributed hugely to the rise in popularity of MLB games... as is the case with most anything. The more something is exposed, the more popular it will become. How did Texas Hold 'Em become popular? Fox Sports and other channels started broadcasting poker competitions.

[captlid]

I think its a big mistake to depend on girls and women to support a league. Just look at the NPF. Guys are still the biggest consumers of sports. Maybe that will change when humankind evolves but I am not holding my breath for it to happen.

[NotAboutEgo]

I think its a big mistake to depend on girls and women to support a league. Just look at the NPF. Guys are still the biggest consumers of sports. Maybe that will change when humankind evolves but I am not holding my breath for it to happen.

I don't know if Tony was actually stating that a WMLB would rely on only girls and women to support it. He asked if girls and women would support it. I took it to mean "would enough girls and women be interested in supporting a women's pro league" but not necessarily meaning solely relying on girls and women to support it. That would be like depending on boys and guys solely to support MLB or any other pro sport. That would take away a huge part of the fan base and would hurt MLB. I heard an MLB coach recently say that women make up 40-some percent of MLB fans. There are a lot of female fans for other pro sports as well.

The biggest reason why men make up the majority of sports fans, if they are even that much of a majority anymore, is because of the effects of the attitudes of our society that have been in existence for so long. Women were still told, up until maybe the 1980's, that sports are not for them, and that women are to be feminine and weak in character. Women in the 1960's had to fight to play any sports. The majority of women who wanted to play sports before the 1980's were denied the opportunity to do so. Collegiate athletic scholarships weren't available for women until the last 20 years or so. Even in the 1970's, sports opportunities for women were limited, and it still wasn't completely accepted by society for women to be sports fans.

During the time when it wasn't socially acceptable for women to play sports, the rebels who didn't listen and participated anyway were bashed and labeled as lesbians. That stigma still exists today... maybe to a lesser degree... but it still exists. When I played ice hockey in the early to mid 1990's when I was in college, me and my teammates were labeled as lesbians... and guys were the ones who were labeling us as such... like they were jealous and couldn't handle the fact that we, as women, were playing ice hockey.

Now, more girls than ever participate in sports in school and non-school programs. It has become more accepted for girls and women to be sports fans and for girls and women to participate in sports. Things are changing, but things still are far from being equal.

I agree. People as a whole need to evolve so that girls and women and others aren't denied opportunities to play baseball or to do whatever else it is that they enjoy doing.

[NotAboutEgo]

I think its a big mistake to depend on girls and women to support a league. Just look at the NPF. Guys are still the biggest consumers of sports. Maybe that will change when humankind evolves but I am not holding my breath for it to happen.

I don't know if Tony was actually stating that a WMLB would rely only on girls and women to support it. He asked if girls and women would support it. I took it to mean "would enough girls and women be interested in supporting a women's pro league" but not necessarily meaning solely relying on girls and women to support it. That would be like depending on boys and guys solely to support MLB or any other pro sport. That would take away a huge part of the fan base and would hurt MLB. I heard an MLB coach recently say that women make up 40-some percent of MLB fans. There are a lot of female fans for other pro sports as well.

The biggest reason why men make up the majority of sports fans, if they are even that much of a majority anymore, is because of the effects of the attitudes of our society that have been in existence for so long. Women were still told, up until maybe the 1980's, that sports are not for them, and that women are to be feminine and weak in character. Women in the 1960's had to fight to play any sports. The majority of women who wanted to play sports before the 1980's were denied the opportunity to do so. Collegiate athletic scholarships weren't available for women until the last 20 years or so. Even in the 1970's, sports opportunities for women were limited, and it still wasn't completely accepted by society for women to be sports fans.

During the time when it wasn't socially acceptable for women to play sports, the rebels who didn't listen and participated anyway were bashed and labeled as lesbians. That stigma still exists today... maybe to a lesser degree... but it still exists. When I played ice hockey in the early to mid 1990's when I was in college, me and my teammates were labeled as lesbians... and guys were the ones who were labeling us as such... like they were jealous and couldn't handle the fact that we, as women, were playing ice hockey.

Now, more girls than ever participate in sports in school and non-school programs. It has become more accepted for girls and women to be sports fans and for girls and women to participate in sports. Things are changing, but things still are far from being equal.

I agree. People as a whole need to evolve so that girls and women and others aren't denied opportunities to play baseball or to do whatever else it is that they enjoy doing.

[TG Coach]

The biggest reason why men make up the majority of sports fans, if they are even that much of a majority anymore, is because of the effects of the attitudes of our society that have been in existence for so long. Women were still told, up until maybe the 1980's, that sports are not for them, and that women are to be feminine and weak in character.

What a bunch of hogwash. You need to check the stats. You make it look like a lot of women aren't sports fans. It's closer to 50/50 than you think. The problem with women's pro sports is how much poorer the level of play is compared to men's teams. I went to our high school girl's basketball game last night. They're in first place. It was hard to watch. My son's middle school team from last year would have beaten them. Why? The 8th grade boys are bigger, faster and stronger which lends itself to better skills.

For an WMLB to have any chance of success they would need to acquiree the largest market base the WNBA has, which is lesbians. At lot of WNBA marketing in done to the gay market. However, if the NBA pulled it's subsidy the WNBA would crash and burn tomorrow.

The "women were taught sports aren't feminine" is a bunch of bull. For the past fifteen years the youth girls sports market has exploded. My daughter is a college softball player. You couldn't drag her to a NPF game (I have access to free tickets). But she'll go to MLB games. You couldn't drag her to a WNBA game. But she'll go to NBA games. And she loves pro football. Why is this? She wants to see the best compete. She'll watch the best college teams play softball because that's her game. But there's no interest in watching pros play.

[NotAboutEgo]

What a bunch of hogwash. You need to check the stats. You make it look like a lot of women aren't sports fans. It's closer to 50/50 than you think. The problem with women's pro sports is how much poorer the level of play is compared to men's teams. I went to our high school girl's basketball game last night. They're in first place. It was hard to watch. My son's middle school team from last year would have beaten them. Why? The 8th grade boys are bigger, faster and stronger which lends itself to better skills.

For an WMLB to have any chance of success they would need to acquiree the largest market base the WNBA has, which is lesbians. At lot of WNBA marketing in done to the gay market. However, if the NBA pulled it's subsidy the WNBA would crash and burn tomorrow.

The "women were taught sports aren't feminine" is a bunch of bull. For the past fifteen years the youth girls sports market has exploded. My daughter is a college softball player. You couldn't drag her to a NPF game (I have access to free tickets). But she'll go to MLB games. You couldn't drag her to a WNBA game. But she'll go to NBA games. And she loves pro football. Why is this? She wants to see the best compete. She'll watch the best college teams play softball because that's her game. But there's no interest in watching pros play.

Did I say that a lot of women aren't sports fans? Did you even read what I wrote... or much less, comprehend what I wrote? Apparently not. I said, if men still are the majority of sports fans... of which I don't know the percentages, because I haven't checked... it's because of our society's view of women throughout history. I didn't mention any numbers at all except for the fact that I heard from an MLB coach that women make up 40% of MLB fans. I then said things have changed, but things aren't equal... meaning sports opportunities for girls and women still aren't equal... also meaning that there were less female sports fans in the past, and that was due to the attitudes of our society which influenced the roles of women.

Furthermore, I never mentioned anything about women's sports compared to men's sports or anything like that. I was talking about women being sports fans and how the limited sports opportunities that women and girls have had throughout history has greatly affected the numbers of female sports fans during that time. In my original post, I said there are a lot more girls and women participating in school and non-school and collegiate sports now compared to before, and that influences the increase in female sports fans.

Your comment about a WMLB having to market to lesbians to be successful is crap. If it was marketed right, it would attract fans from all walks of life. Your point of view comes from pure prejudice and stereotypes.

Girls and women were NOT allowed to participate in many sports before the 1980's and didn't have that many sports programs available to them back then. Go check some data on that, because you are sure to find it. Again, I talked about that in my original post... the 1980's were 20 years ago... give or take a year or two... depending on what year you're talking about. Girls and women in the 1960's and before virutally have no sports opportunities and were DISCOURAGED from being athletic and playing sports. Again, do some research. This even lasted into the 1970's.

That's fine if your daughter prefers those sports over women's pro sports. That's her choice, but not every person on this planet is exactly like your daughter. Many people enjoy sports of all kinds from many differene avenues.

You should learn to comprehend what you read.

[Knick9]

What a bunch of hogwash. You need to check the stats. You make it look like a lot of women aren't sports fans. It's closer to 50/50 than you think. The problem with women's pro sports is how much poorer the level of play is compared to men's teams. I went to our high school girl's basketball game last night. They're in first place. It was hard to watch. My son's middle school team from last year would have beaten them. Why? The 8th grade boys are bigger, faster and stronger which lends itself to better skills.

For an WMLB to have any chance of success they would need to acquiree the largest market base the WNBA has, which is lesbians. At lot of WNBA marketing in done to the gay market. However, if the NBA pulled it's subsidy the WNBA would crash and burn tomorrow.

The "women were taught sports aren't feminine" is a bunch of bull. For the past fifteen years the youth girls sports market has exploded. My daughter is a college softball player. You couldn't drag her to a NPF game (I have access to free tickets). But she'll go to MLB games. You couldn't drag her to a WNBA game. But she'll go to NBA games. And she loves pro football. Why is this? She wants to see the best compete. She'll watch the best college teams play softball because that's her game. But there's no interest in watching pros play.

This post is absolutely full of crap. Plain and simple.

[NotAboutEgo]

The 8th grade boys are bigger, faster and stronger which lends itself to better skills.

Bigger, faster, and stronger DON'T equate to better skills. Skills are another component, separate of being bigger, faster, and stronger. You are completely wrong here.

[TG Coach]

meaning sports opportunities for girls and women still aren't equal

Have you heard of Title IX?


Your comment about a WMLB having to market to lesbians to be successful is crap. If it was marketed right, it would attract fans from all walks of life. Your point of view comes from pure prejudice and stereotypes.

It's a commonly accepted fact in the sports world. I read the information in a pro sports business journal. Besides, the WNBA is not successful. It would crash to the ground tomorrow without it's NBA subsidy (another known fact).


Girls and women were NOT allowed to participate in many sports before the 1980's and didn't have that many sports programs available to them back then.

Get off your dinosaur and quit griping. It's 2007, not 1980. Hello! It's twenty-seven years later. There's Title IX. There's also been women's pro sports leagues. They've all failed without subsidies. It's called the market approach. If there was a market for pro women's baseball someone would make a buck off it. There isn't even a market for pro womens's fastpitch. That league has re-orged three times and it's failing again. They have trouble giving away tickets for our local team. I showed an investment prospectus to my accountant. He said it looked like a great way to lose 250K.



You should learn to comprehend what you read.

I understand everything you say. It's the same gripe over and over and over and over and over and over ...... It's the song that never ends.

[TonyK]

I think its a big mistake to depend on girls and women to support a league. Just look at the NPF. Guys are still the biggest consumers of sports. Maybe that will change when humankind evolves but I am not holding my breath for it to happen.

Today's kids will support a different mix of professional leagues when they reach our age. It seems fair to assume that women will make up a growing share of the fanbase. I think it would be an interesting challenge for a WMLB to try and attract both males and females. Men might watch to compare the game to MLB, and women might watch if they played softball or youth baseball. If more girls started playing baseball then this adds to a WMLB's appeal.

I didn't know even know what the NPF stood for until I read this thread. As far as lesbians interest in the WNBA goes is there a Neilson survey or WNBA survey that has this information?

[TG Coach]

I didn't know even know what the NPF stood for until I read this thread. As far as lesbians interest in the WNBA goes is there a Neilson survey or WNBA survey that has this information?

I read it a couple of years ago in a marketing report. I can't remember the references. It's been repeated in sports columns.

Edit: Did a search ....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/wnba/stories/2001-07-23-lesbian-fans.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/wnba/stories/2001-07-21-lesbians.htm
http://www.girlbar.com/media.php?ID=12
http://www.gfn.com/storyArticle.cfm?storyRecordID=7679
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/drehs/010524.html
http://www.gay.com/content/tools/print.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2001/05/10/3&navpath=channels/news
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23160

[TonyK]

I read it a couple of years ago in a marketing report. I can't remember the references. It's been repeated in sports columns.

Edit: Did a search ....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/wnba/stories/2001-07-23-lesbian-fans.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/wnba/stories/2001-07-21-lesbians.htm
http://www.girlbar.com/media.php?ID=12
http://www.gfn.com/storyArticle.cfm?storyRecordID=7679
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/drehs/010524.html
http://www.gay.com/content/tools/print.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2001/05/10/3&navpath=channels/news
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23160

Very interesting stories about the 2001 LA Sparks. One quote I read said that the majority of the players in the WNBA are lesbians.

Has anything changed since these stories were reported?

[NotAboutEgo]

Have you heard of Title IX?



It's a commonly accepted fact in the sports world. I read the information in a pro sports business journal. Besides, the WNBA is not successful. It would crash to the ground tomorrow without it's NBA subsidy (another known fact).



Get off your dinosaur and quit griping. It's 2007, not 1980. Hello! It's twenty-seven years later. There's Title IX. There's also been women's pro sports leagues. They've all failed without subsidies. It's called the market approach. If there was a market for pro women's baseball someone would make a buck off it. There isn't even a market for pro womens's fastpitch. That league has re-orged three times and it's failing again. They have trouble giving away tickets for our local team. I showed an investment prospectus to my accountant. He said it looked like a great way to lose 250K.




I understand everything you say. It's the same gripe over and over and over and over and over and over ...... It's the song that never ends.

Things STILL aren't equal. If they were, girls and women would be able to play baseball in ANY youth league, in ANY junior high or high school, and in ANY college without having to fight to do so and without facing harassment. GET OUT FROM UNDER YOUR ROCK AND GET A CLUE!!!

I don't give a rat's ass what you've read. Just because it's a commonly "accepted" fact in the sports world... about the lesbian stereotype of women who play and watch sports doesn't mean it's true. "Accepted" only means it's socailly accepted... social conditioning... but doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Jeez... there's no way in the world that straight females could ever be athletes and could ever be successful at it! So, that means all female athletes are gay!

How many gay guys play pro sports? Tons, but you hardly ever hear about them, because most men are far too insecure to admit that they are gay. A few male gay pro athletes have come forth in the public to talk about this issue saying the same thing. Guys have to keep quiet about being gay, because of the ridicule they may face from their peers if they come out of the closet. There are so many gay guys in pro sports... I bet the numbers of gay guys in sports are equal to the number of lesbians who play sports. You guys are just too insecure to admit it and talk about it. Who's the weaker gender?

It's funny what you say about women's pro sports failing. We can't say that women's sports have gotten exactly the same publicity throughout history that men's sports have gotten, and marketing is everything... how much you do it and the way you do it. TV has heavily influenced what's popular and what's not. Why do you think so many people follow reality TV? Do you think people started asking for it to be put on TV before it existed? What about sports fishing and poker and all that? That's got to be the most boring, antagonzing stuff to watch, yet it's on TV. TV drives what's popular... not the other way around. Get educated.

Why is it that the Detroit Red Wings, one of the most successful hockey teams in the NHL ifor the past 10 years or more, has to sell $9 seats this season and have $1 hot dog days to get people to the games... when they used to sell out every home game? They are currently the top team in the NHL. The fans are sick and tired of the way some pro sports teams rape them and how the players get paid ridiculous amounts of money and yet demand even more, because they don't think their oodles of millions is enough. Seems to me that women's sports aren't the only ones who need help these days!

[TG Coach]

Lots and lots of anger. Reality really ticks you off. There isn't a market for pro women's sports. Girls are not physicaly capable of competing versus boys after the boys physicaly mature. I played high school basketball. A neighbor played in the WBL before it folded. When I was in college and not playing a lot of basketball she still couldn't beat me one on one. A female pro couldn't beat a high school player. I'll say this one until you accept it. Mia Hamm said the gold medal women's soccer team struggled against U19 state level travel boys teams. The best woman's team in the world had trouble with a team of high school aged boys.

You're just a broken CD that skips, repeating the same thing repeatedly. Someone please give the CD player a nudge.

[digglahhh]

Just to chime in about the separate league issue, I don't see any sort of moral or social injustice about the women's only league.

In comparison to women infiltrating the MLB, the simple fact is that it is unlikely to happen any time soon, and in any significant proportion, ever. To focus your energy on that would be to deprive lots of women the opportunity to make a living doing something they love (isn't that what we all want anyway?), in favor of one or two women possibly being able to make a political point, and suffering for it. It seems the greater good for the greatest number is the WMLB approach.

A big benefit of such an approach would be its role in building the infrastructure of women's baseball. Current "paths" would have an end-road, those paths would be further developed because of the existence of a clear end-road.

If it ever reached the point where the WMLB was turning out MLB caliber players, I guess, even one, unequivocally MLB caliber player, at that point it would be time to re-examine the integration issue.

Looking at the Negro Leagues, it was undeniable that there were many MLB caliber players being produced there, so exclusion could no longer be justified on practical grounds, which it can be in this case. Along the same lines, the Negro Leagues were different because they were immoral in conception, due to the fact that there is no reasonable basis for why one would think that black male athletes couldn't compete with white male athletes.

Again, the WMLB, although in some respects, a "smaller step" would mean the greatest good to the greatest number, and represent the most natural step in an evolution that theoretically ends with women populating MLB rosters with any regularity.

As far as the discrimination question, there are different classes of protection for different groups under Constitutional Law. The proposed separate leagues wouldn't violate discrimination clauses. This is not the case with the Negro Leagues, it is almost impossible to exclude by race under Constitutional Law. Gender is held to the second highest standard, the burden of proving a defensible reason for the exclusion is lighter than race (or religion), but still somewhat difficult to prove. The distinction between the two standards is, I believe, what allowed women to exempt from the (military) draft without that classifying as discrimination. Constitutional law is not my area of expertise, though I am pretty confident about this paragraph (except the draft stuff, which is just my hypothesis, though it seems pretty reasonable).

[TonyK]

Where I live there are already four spring sports for high school girls...softball, lacrosse, tennis and outdoor track. That makes it difficult for a fifth sport like baseball to crack into that lineup because of money, field availability, and having enough girls.

What about the spring sports for other regions of the US?

I don't know if both softball and baseball teams would work for girls in HS. One alternative would be girls travel baseball teams. Get 3 or 4 girls from four towns to play on a team all summer.

The real test to me is which sport would girls prefer playing, baseball or softball? Boys around here don't have that choice in HS as every school has a baseball team. I don't know of boys travel softball teams, but I'm sure some exist.

[captlid]

The distinction between the two standards is, I believe, what allowed women to exempt from the (military) draft without that classifying as discrimination. Constitutional law is not my area of expertise, though I am pretty confident about this paragraph (except the draft stuff, which is just my hypothesis, though it seems pretty reasonable).

The original militia act only included males from the age of 17 to 45. That is the same age group that is used for the military draft if I am not mistaken.

In terms of discrimination and constitutional law, its pretty simple. If an organization or company is in anyway benefitting from public funds (which the MLB is because of funded stadiums) than it has to abide by the Equal Employer guidelines.

Now on the other hand if the MLB totally funded everything by itself, it has every right as a private entity to associate or not associate (the first amendment) with anyone it pleases. And that includes black folk back in the day. Whether its morally right is a whole nother story.

I guess thats why america has so many lawers. We have alot of city, state and federal laws.

[Baseball Mum]

The marketing of the game to a sector of the population is one thing, and in those cases it makes sense if the percentage of gay fans is above the national norm. But my radar starts to buzz any time I hear someone say "it's a commonly known fact" about anything. I know for a fact that there are "commonly held facts" about various things, (not related to sport, so I won't detail them here) that are just plain false. Any attempt to inform the person or media outlet otherwise is looked upon with disdain because "we all know it's the the other way".

So there is a quote saying that the majority of players are lesbians. Was statistical data produced? Has there been a survey properly and officially done, or is it someone's view of how they imagine it to be. They'd be the questions I'd be asking if faced with a quote such as that one.

I know that here in the Women's leagues that I follow, the rate of gay participation and support would match very well with the national average. The number of boyfriends, husbands, families watching is testament to that.

[NotAboutEgo]

The marketing of the game to a sector of the population is one thing, and in those cases it makes sense if the percentage of gay fans is above the national norm. But my radar starts to buzz any time I hear someone say "it's a commonly known fact" about anything. I know for a fact that there are "commonly held facts" about various things, (not related to sport, so I won't detail them here) that are just plain false. Any attempt to inform the person or media outlet otherwise is looked upon with disdain because "we all know it's the the other way".

So there is a quote saying that the majority of players are lesbians. Was statistical data produced? Has there been a survey properly and officially done, or is it someone's view of how they imagine it to be. They'd be the questions I'd be asking if faced with a quote such as that one.

I know that here in the Women's leagues that I follow, the rate of gay participation and support would match very well with the national average. The number of boyfriends, husbands, families watching is testament to that.

Exactly. I saw a documentary about women's sports in the U.S. on HBO or a similar channel. It talked briefly about the history of women's sports in the U.S. Basically, since women have been shunned since the beginning of time from playing sports, it was seen as "unfeminine" for women to play sports before the past decade or two, and it was not socially accepted throughout most of history. Because of this and the harassment and abuse that most women faced when they wanted to play sports, most of them let go of their desire to play sports. They felt it was more important to have peace in their lives than to be in the middle of drama all the time to play sports. Along with this, there were hardly any sports programs in schools for women before the 1970's or 1980's.

The documentary talked about how there were some rebels in the women's sports world who didn't let society dictate what they did in terms of playing sports. Most of these women who fought society on this were lesbians. Things have changed a lot since then, but things still aren't equal. Many women who play sports are still labeled as lesbians, and many female fans are labeled as lesbians. A stereotype was created and still hasn't died completely.

So, in some people's minds, most female athletes and fans are lesbians... regardless of what is reality to most everyone else.

[NotAboutEgo]

The issue of girls and women not being given equal sports opportunities relates to the "the woman's place is in the kitchen" syndrome.

[NotAboutEgo]

The original militia act only included males from the age of 17 to 45. That is the same age group that is used for the military draft if I am not mistaken.

In terms of discrimination and constitutional law, its pretty simple. If an organization or company is in anyway benefitting from public funds (which the MLB is because of funded stadiums) than it has to abide by the Equal Employer guidelines.

Now on the other hand if the MLB totally funded everything by itself, it has every right as a private entity to associate or not associate (the first amendment) with anyone it pleases. And that includes black folk back in the day. Whether its morally right is a whole nother story.

I guess thats why america has so many lawers. We have alot of city, state and federal laws.

Along with that, schools, colleges, and organizations that relate to education are not legally able to discriminate on the basis of gender or any other superficial reason.

We have so many lawyers in the U.S. because there are so many people who are sue-happy to make a buck.

The reason women weren't allowed in the military in the past is point-blank discrimination... just like most everything in our society has been throughout history.

[NotAboutEgo]

Where I live there are already four spring sports for high school girls...softball, lacrosse, tennis and outdoor track. That makes it difficult for a fifth sport like baseball to crack into that lineup because of money, field availability, and having enough girls.

What about the spring sports for other regions of the US?

I don't know if both softball and baseball teams would work for girls in HS. One alternative would be girls travel baseball teams. Get 3 or 4 girls from four towns to play on a team all summer.

The real test to me is which sport would girls prefer playing, baseball or softball? Boys around here don't have that choice in HS as every school has a baseball team. I don't know of boys travel softball teams, but I'm sure some exist.

Another alternative would be creating girls' HS baseball teams in neighboring schools to be part of a league. Perhaps the players would have to pay fees and raise money if the schools didn't have the money to support another sport. It could be like a club sport in HS until girls' baseball grows to become a varsity HS sport.

The bottom line is, if there are enough players to support teams and leagues, the players should be given the opportunity to play... however that comes about. Girls have never had an open opportunity to play baseball in HS, so the egg needs to be cracked to see how many would be interested in playing on all-girls' HS teams against all-girls' teams from other HS's. If people are truly interested in giving everyone equal opportunities to play sports in school and in other educational and recreational organizations, someone needs to take the first step in making it happen.

If there are enough numbers in different areas to support girls' baseball, then they should have the opportunity to play. Everyone should have the opportunity to play whatever sport they choose to play as long as it's feasible.

[Charger567]

Not About Ego, I don't get what you're arguing here. You started off talking about a WMLB, now you are just sounding like a ridiculous feminist. A while ago, you were actually comparing women's sports to men's sports like they are on the same level.


It's funny what you say about women's pro sports failing. We can't say that women's sports have gotten exactly the same publicity throughout history that men's sports have gotten, and marketing is everything... how much you do it and the way you do it.

It just seems like you deserve your own league, because you're women. Forget that whole inferiority factor. You deserve publicity, because you're women.

Why the hell do you think men's sports get all the publicity? Because they are the top athletes in the world. If women would compete with men, it would be a different story. But they simply can't. If there were women who could compete; I would be on your side. I would like to see the top female ballplayers in the world play against a minor league team. I would be shocked if they were capable of getting out of the first inning.

[NotAboutEgo]

Not About Ego, I don't get what you're arguing here. You started off talking about a WMLB, now you are just sounding like a ridiculous feminist. A while ago, you were actually comparing women's sports to men's sports like they are on the same level.



It just seems like you deserve your own league, because you're women. Forget that whole inferiority factor. You deserve publicity, because you're women.

Why the hell do you think men's sports get all the publicity? Because they are the top athletes in the world. If women would compete with men, it would be a different story. But they simply can't. If there were women who could compete; I would be on your side. I would like to see the top female ballplayers in the world play against a minor league team. I would be shocked if they were capable of getting out of the first inning.

You should reread the whole thread, Charger, because you obviously are not comprehending. I never said that women's pro sports are on the same level as men pro sports. I have been stating that if there are women who are good enough to play in MLB, they should be allowed to. Why was a ban placed on women playing in the minors and in MLB... since women are so inferior to men in sports? That's a HUGE oxymoron, it doesn't make sense, and it isn't necessary, IF women are so inferior. No one can ever seem to answer that question. It's easier to ignore than to face it and find out why it happened.

When one is talking about where something such as women's baseball and women's sports are today, they talk about what happend in the past up until this point, because it influences what is happening now. Attitudes from the beginning of human existence are still permeating today. If there were no problems today, there would be no point of discussing these issues, unless one was solely interested in researching and talking about the past.

Someone else brought up the idea of a WMLB and that they see it as discrimination. Some of us were talking about it not being discrimination. Obviously, you haven't gotten that out of reading the posts.

Publicity is what makes something popular. Women have NEVER gotten the publicity men have in regards to sports, and it's because of discrimination. I can guarantee there are studies out there to prove this. Why do you think women have been fighting since the beginning of time to just play sports for recreation and in the Olympics? Women's ski jumping STILL isn't an Olympic sport even though women around the world compete in it all the time... why? It's because women jump farther than men do, because of their smaller size and lower weight... and we can't have that happening, now can we? Women could never be seen doing something better than men... right?

As far as amateur sports go, there is a ton of gender discrimination going on against girls and women who want to play baseball and other sports. It's not too hard to see and figure out... much less, a lot of us are living it. Any kind of discrimination in sports is legally and ethically wrong. If someone wants to participate, they have every right to. No one needs to sit and beg to do so.

Why do you think girls and women shouldn't have their own leagues for baseball and other sports? Do you believe they should sit around and do what they're told to do and should be unhappy throughout life because they are denied opportunities to do something they enjoy? I personally know a lot of women, including my mom, who would have loved to have had opportunities to play sports in school and in community programs, but they were told they couldn't JUST because they are females, and nothing but cheerleading was offered to them in school. I have researched softball a bit, and there were girls from several schools in Chicago who started softball teams before the 1960's, and the schools kept banning them from competing interscholastically. The girls kept pushing and kept forming teams and kept playing anyway. Eventually, schools starting allowing girls to compete interscholastically in softball.

If those aren't blatant forms of gender discrimination, I don't know what is. And it's all influencing what's happening today, including the negative attitudes towards girls' and women's sports. There is plenty of published evidence proving gender discrimination that has happend in the past and that is still happening today. Also, many of us are experiencing it in our lives. Perhaps you should spend some time in the library learning about it.

Why don't you open up your young mind and educate yourself rather than ridiculing everyone you feel is wrong in your eyes and who doesn't see things exactly as you do? I've read some of your other posts in other sections of this forum, and it seems that you enjoy putting people down when they have an opinion other than yours.

What would be happening if the tables were turned... if men were the ones who've been discriminated against since the beginning of time in sports and in life in general? What would you think, and what would you be saying then?

Why should ANYONE be held back from doing something they enjoy? You know... control will get you no where. It doesn't belong in the universe in any form.

[NotAboutEgo]

Not About Ego, I don't get what you're arguing here. You started off talking about a WMLB, now you are just sounding like a ridiculous feminist. A while ago, you were actually comparing women's sports to men's sports like they are on the same level.



It just seems like you deserve your own league, because you're women. Forget that whole inferiority factor. You deserve publicity, because you're women.

Why the hell do you think men's sports get all the publicity? Because they are the top athletes in the world. If women would compete with men, it would be a different story. But they simply can't. If there were women who could compete; I would be on your side. I would like to see the top female ballplayers in the world play against a minor league team. I would be shocked if they were capable of getting out of the first inning.

Furterhmore, I'm not saying girls and women should have their own leagues JUST because they are females. They should have thier own leagues, because that's what they want. That's enough of a reason.

Your statements are completely ignorant.

[NotAboutEgo]

Not About Ego, I don't get what you're arguing here. You started off talking about a WMLB, now you are just sounding like a ridiculous feminist. A while ago, you were actually comparing women's sports to men's sports like they are on the same level.



It just seems like you deserve your own league, because you're women. Forget that whole inferiority factor. You deserve publicity, because you're women.

Why the hell do you think men's sports get all the publicity? Because they are the top athletes in the world. If women would compete with men, it would be a different story. But they simply can't. If there were women who could compete; I would be on your side. I would like to see the top female ballplayers in the world play against a minor league team. I would be shocked if they were capable of getting out of the first inning.

If you are going with the attitude that anything that is inferior to anything else shouldn't get any publicity, then why is the Little League World Series publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Why should any collegiate baseball get publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Since MLB is the absolute top, why should ANY other baseball get ANY publicity at all??? Why should team A get any publicity if it's inferior to team B? Men's ski jumping is inferior to women's ski jumping, so why should men's ski jumping get ANY publicity during the Olympics, and why should it even be in the Olympics?

When women do get publicity for sports, a lot of the time it's negative publicity (especially publicity from the past). There is plenty of historical evidence to prove this. If you need some to enlighten you, let me know. Negative publicity and lack of publicity comes from people's attitudes and the conceptions of their minds. Each person chooses their own attitudes; therefore, they're a reflection of them and who they are.

[Charger567]

If you are going with the attitude that anything that is inferior to anything else shouldn't get any publicity, then why is the Little League World Series publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Why should any collegiate baseball get publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Since MLB is the absolute top, why should ANY other baseball get ANY publicity at all??? Why should team A get any publicity if it's inferior to team B? Men's ski jumping is inferior to women's ski jumping, so why should men's ski jumping get ANY publicity during the Olympics, and why should it even be in the Olympics?

When women do get publicity for sports, a lot of the time it's negative publicity (especially publicity from the past). There is plenty of historical evidence to prove this. If you need some to enlighten you, let me know. Negative publicity and lack of publicity comes from people's attitudes and the conceptions of their minds. Each person chooses their own attitudes; therefore, they're a reflection of them and who they are.

Little League World Series and College World Series are publicized no more often than Womens softball. It is for entertainment, and it would never work if it were to go on for an entire season. As entertaining as it would be to watch kids play, and college players play, it would get old. Just as it would seeing a woman in uniform, it's amazing for about 2 weeks, then people go back to the real talent.

[Charger567]

Furterhmore, I'm not saying girls and women should have their own leagues JUST because they are females. They should have thier own leagues, because that's what they want. That's enough of a reason.

Your statements are completely ignorant.

Say women did have their own leagues. If they wanted them, that's enough. If you wanted it to be publicized, it would be BECAUSE they are women. Because they don't deserve it. Women are an inferior talent, so they don't deserve to get publicity. If they are capable of what men are, I would watch.

By the way, that whole ignorant thing doesn't work when it goes unprovoked. Someone has to actually say something ignorant, not just because you disagree with them....

[NotAboutEgo]

Say women did have their own leagues. If they wanted them, that's enough. If you wanted it to be publicized, it would be BECAUSE they are women. Because they don't deserve it. Women are an inferior talent, so they don't deserve to get publicity. If they are capable of what men are, I would watch.

By the way, that whole ignorant thing doesn't work when it goes unprovoked. Someone has to actually say something ignorant, not just because you disagree with them....

One doesn't need a reason to tell someone else their comments are ignorant... except for seeing that they are ignorant. The things you say are ignorant... like women not deserving any publicity and the reason women want publicity is ONLY because they are women. You don't have a clue as to what the issues are about, because you are young and therefore, you have a lot to learn and experience, and you have a closed-minded attitude. Did you get that attitude from your parents... maybe from your dad?

Women are not inferior in talent. They are only smaller and not as strong physically, on average, than males. That's the ONLY things men can brag about. Talent doesn't come from size and strength. Learn how to decipher between them.

You should poke your head outside your cave once in a while and get rid of your "Archie Bunker mentality."

[NotAboutEgo]

Say women did have their own leagues. If they wanted them, that's enough. If you wanted it to be publicized, it would be BECAUSE they are women. Because they don't deserve it. Women are an inferior talent, so they don't deserve to get publicity. If they are capable of what men are, I would watch.

By the way, that whole ignorant thing doesn't work when it goes unprovoked. Someone has to actually say something ignorant, not just because you disagree with them....

Ignorance is having a high and mighty, superiority complex.

[Charger567]

Women are not inferior in talent. They are only smaller and not as strong physically, on average, than males. That's the ONLY things men can brag about. Talent doesn't come from size and strength. Learn how to decipher between them.

You should poke your head outside your cave once in a while and get rid of your "Archie Bunker mentality."

It doesn't matter. That is a pretty damn big thing for men to brag about. Strength is as important as talent, and if it weren't, women would be able to take men on.

And you simply calling me ignorant is pretty damn foolish as well. If you are going to call me ignorant, at least put up your argument instead of calling everyone who opposes you ignorant.

The fact is, women don't DESERVE publicity. You seem to think they do because it would be "equal opportunity," which it wouldn't be. It would be handing it right over because feminists are pissed off.

Forget the fact that this girls baseball team couldn't compete in a D1 college league, they deserve equal opportunity and therefore deserve publicity!

My dad has never discussed women's sports with me, but he does know where they place. Behind men. You talk badly about men who think women are inferior in athletics like it isn't a fact. At least he understands that.

I really don't see what you're argument is. You are just a hypocritical, pissed off feminist who wants publicity handed to you even though men deserve it more.

[NotAboutEgo]

[QUOTE=Charger567;1079050]It doesn't matter. That is a pretty damn big thing for men to brag about. Strength is as important as talent, and if it weren't, women would be able to take men on.

And you simply calling me ignorant is pretty damn foolish as well. If you are going to call me ignorant, at least put up your argument instead of calling everyone who opposes you ignorant.

The fact is, women don't DESERVE publicity. You seem to think they do because it would be "equal opportunity," which it wouldn't be. It would be handing it right over because feminists are pissed off.

Forget the fact that this girls baseball team couldn't compete in a D1 college league, they deserve equal opportunity and therefore deserve publicity!

My dad has never discussed women's sports with me, but he does know where they place. Behind men. You talk badly about men who think women are inferior in athletics like it isn't a fact. At least he understands that.

I really don't see what you're argument is. You are just a hypocritical, pissed off feminist who wants publicity handed to you even though men deserve it more.[/QUOTE}

I already told you why I say your comments are ignorant.

It's very ignorant to say someone doesn't deserve something... period. It's saying the same thing as some people are priveledged and have rights in regards to certain things over others because of gender or race or color or whatever, but others are not priveledged and don't have the same rights. That's point-blank ignorance and bigotry. I can't think of a better example. It has nothing to do with differing opinions. It IS a high and mighty attitude.

It doesn't matter what your position is. If you believe women are inferior to men in anything, that's your opinion. I'm not debating your opinion. What I'm debating is when you say women don't deserve publicity and that being bigger and stronger automatically means one has more talent and skill. I'm also debating the fact that you say that women only want their own leagues and publicity JUST because they are women. You are completely wrong and ignorant about that. Analyze the details.

What you believe shows you have a superiority complex. It doesn't matter who's better and who's not. Stating that someone doesn't deserve something is taking away from someone. If a student in a class gets lower grades than another student, are you going to tell that student that they are inferior and therefore, they don't deserve the education they are receiving and that the teacher shouldn't give them as much attention as the students who get better grades? It's no different.

Since women are superior in ski jumping to men... according to your opinion, men's ski jumping shouldn't get any publicity, and men's ski jumping needs to be removed from the Olympics, and women's ski jumping needs to be added so it gets all the publicity. How do you feel about that?

[NotAboutEgo]

It doesn't matter. That is a pretty damn big thing for men to brag about. Strength is as important as talent, and if it weren't, women would be able to take men on.

And you simply calling me ignorant is pretty damn foolish as well. If you are going to call me ignorant, at least put up your argument instead of calling everyone who opposes you ignorant.

The fact is, women don't DESERVE publicity. You seem to think they do because it would be "equal opportunity," which it wouldn't be. It would be handing it right over because feminists are pissed off.

Forget the fact that this girls baseball team couldn't compete in a D1 college league, they deserve equal opportunity and therefore deserve publicity!

My dad has never discussed women's sports with me, but he does know where they place. Behind men. You talk badly about men who think women are inferior in athletics like it isn't a fact. At least he understands that.

I really don't see what you're argument is. You are just a hypocritical, pissed off feminist who wants publicity handed to you even though men deserve it more.

I already told you why I say your comments are ignorant. Bragging about anything is ignorant. It's shows insecurity and reveals the need to tell someone else you are better than they are at something because you feel inadequate about something whether it's related or not. It's a way of mentally compensating for one's feeling of inadequacy.

It's very ignorant to say someone doesn't deserve something... period. It's saying the same thing as some people are priveledged and have rights in regards to certain things over others because of gender or race or color or whatever, but others are not priveledged and don't have the same rights. That's point-blank ignorance and bigotry. I can't think of a better example. It has nothing to do with differing opinions. It IS a high and mighty attitude.

It doesn't matter what your position is. If you believe women are inferior to men in anything, that's your opinion. I'm not debating your opinion. What I'm debating is when you say women don't deserve publicity and that being bigger and stronger automatically means one has more talent and skill. I'm also debating the fact that you say that women only want their own leagues and publicity JUST because they are women. You are completely wrong and ignorant about that. Analyze the details and educate yourself as not to be ignorant about it.

What you believe shows you have a superiority complex. It doesn't matter who's better and who's not. Stating that someone doesn't deserve something is taking away from someone. If a student in a class gets lower grades than another student, are you going to tell that student that they are inferior and therefore, they don't deserve the education they are receiving and that the teacher shouldn't give them as much attention as the students who get better grades? It's no different. It's having a false sense of power and control over others.

Since women are superior in ski jumping to men... according to your opinion, "men's ski jumping shouldn't get any publicity, and men's ski jumping needs to be removed from the Olympics, and women's ski jumping needs to be added so it gets all the publicity." How do you feel about that?

[Charger567]

What you believe shows you have a superiority complex. It doesn't matter who's better and who's not. Stating that someone doesn't deserve something is taking away from someone. If a student in a class gets lower grades than another student, are you going to tell that student that they are inferior and therefore, they don't deserve the education they are receiving and that the teacher shouldn't give them as much attention as the students who get better grades? It's no different.

Since women are superior in ski jumping to men... according to your opinion, men's ski jumping shouldn't get any publicity, and men's ski jumping needs to be removed from the Olympics, and women's ski jumping needs to be added so it gets all the publicity. How do you feel about that?

You used a horrible example. Here is a better analogy: If a student in a class is not as smart as another, they are inferior. Therefore, they deserve a lesser grade.

However, to go with your analogy, here is where yours breaks down: There is a big difference between school and professional sports. Everyone has the right to an education, not everyone has the right to a professional athletic career. If your argument applied, Chris Woodward would have as much publicity as Barry Bonds. Unfortunately for women, in the world of sports, strength is a factor in productivity, and not all athletes are equal.

School and professional sports are completely different. You can't treat athletes equally. If you could, there would be no such thing as competition, and really, no such thing as sports.

[NotAboutEgo]

It doesn't matter. That is a pretty damn big thing for men to brag about. Strength is as important as talent, and if it weren't, women would be able to take men on.

And you simply calling me ignorant is pretty damn foolish as well. If you are going to call me ignorant, at least put up your argument instead of calling everyone who opposes you ignorant.

The fact is, women don't DESERVE publicity. You seem to think they do because it would be "equal opportunity," which it wouldn't be. It would be handing it right over because feminists are pissed off.

Forget the fact that this girls baseball team couldn't compete in a D1 college league, they deserve equal opportunity and therefore deserve publicity!

My dad has never discussed women's sports with me, but he does know where they place. Behind men. You talk badly about men who think women are inferior in athletics like it isn't a fact. At least he understands that.

I really don't see what you're argument is. You are just a hypocritical, pissed off feminist who wants publicity handed to you even though men deserve it more.

Who's pissed off? Why do you get so entangled with the thought of women's sports getting publicity when there is some? Why should you care? Is it your dollars that are being spent on the publicity? You have the choice of changing the channel, turning your eyes away from a printed ad, or muting the radio when a women's sports team or event is announced on the radio.

Getting consumed with being pissed off about the advances of women's sports and women breaking down opponents' walls takes away from your concentration on your skills and talents and honing them.

You have no clue as to what the comments about equal opportunity mean.

What girls' baseball team are you speaking of?

[NotAboutEgo]

You used a horrible example. Here is a better analogy: If a student in a class is not as smart as another, they are inferior. Therefore, they deserve a lesser grade.

It's not a horrible example. Publicity is attention. A grade is a rating system. Publicity is a way of promoting, and it doesn't necessarily bode what is seen as "better". It doesn't determine the quality of something.


However, to go with your analogy, here is where yours breaks down: There is a big difference between school and professional sports. Everyone has the right to an education, not everyone has the right to a professional athletic career. If your argument applied, Chris Woodward would have as much publicity as Barry Bonds. Unfortunately for women, in the world of sports, strength is a factor in productivity, and not all athletes are equal.

When I speak of publicity, I'm not necessarily speaking of pro sports... so start looking outside the cave. I never once referred solely to pro sports when it comes to publicity. There are plenty of inequalities in the publicity of amateur sports across the board. HS is a perfect example. Women's sports don't get nearly the same publicity as men's sports do... much less, the same support in terms of equipment, practice time, scheduling, etc. The same goes for women's sports in colleges.


School and professional sports are completely different. You can't treat athletes equally. If you could, there would be no such thing as competition, and really, no such thing as sports.

Again, look outside the cave and think in terms of sports in general. Amateur sports cover a LOT more territory than pro sports do.

[captlid]

So what type of environment is fertile ground for making a women's mlb?

What would have to happen for something like this to take off? Besides the obvious of ticket buyers.

[NotAboutEgo]

So what type of environment is fertile ground for making a women's mlb?

What would have to happen for something like this to take off? Besides the obvious of ticket buyers.

Besides ticket buyers, you'd have to have investors/sponsors. But, before creating a WMLB, it would be best to create the infrastructure to develop players further... create minor leagues, create and develop women's baseball in college and HS and also in youth leagues, etc. It would also be wise for USA Baseball to develop more women's national teams. It would be no different than the development of the MLB and its infrastructure.

[metfan13]

If you are going with the attitude that anything that is inferior to anything else shouldn't get any publicity, then why is the Little League World Series publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Why should any collegiate baseball get publicized? It's very inferior to MLB. Since MLB is the absolute top, why should ANY other baseball get ANY publicity at all??? Why should team A get any publicity if it's inferior to team B? Men's ski jumping is inferior to women's ski jumping, so why should men's ski jumping get ANY publicity during the Olympics, and why should it even be in the Olympics?
When women do get publicity for sports, a lot of the time it's negative publicity (especially publicity from the past). There is plenty of historical evidence to prove this. If you need some to enlighten you, let me know. Negative publicity and lack of publicity comes from people's attitudes and the conceptions of their minds. Each person chooses their own attitudes; therefore, they're a reflection of them and who they are.

Could you provide any evidence to back that up? Men's world record distances are greater than women's.

From what I could find ski jump has not been included because few countries would be able to send competitors. It's not a widespread sport. I do see that women's ski jump will be added to other international competitions over the next couple of years.

[SABR Steve]

It looks like two world's colliding, and the end result will be wherever the market place or the interest takes it.
I like to watch the gals play sport. In many ways they rely on the fundamentals more to make up for the lack of upper body strength.
Women can be every bit as athletic as the men, it's the strength factor that often leaves them behind.
Intersting discussion.

[MSUlaxer27]

I'm torn because I'm attracted to women who are athletic (ie. have played sports and are interested in sports) but I have absolutely no interest in watching women that I'm not involved with/friends with play sports. Some on here may call my attitude sexist, but I'm being honest and acknowledge that my thoughts are somewhat hypocritical. I have almost no desire to watch a woman's major league (like not taking free tickets to the WNBA) and I wonder how many more out there think like me?

Before NAE uses my post to say I've proved her point that it's just about changing perceptions and publicity, I will say that I do not believe that men and women are equal athletically and I only support (ie. buy tickets) for sporting events that are the top level (ie. NCAA div 1, and pro sports) unless I am personally related to the event (ie. I attend 1 game each year at my high school). I'm sure (I hope) that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. How do you change my (our) opinion.

[captlid]

Why would we wish to change your opinion? If you think that only men's pro sports are worth supporting monetarily cause they are the best, nothing we can do will change that.

Glad you like athletic women. Cause most guys I meet are scared around them. :( Or at least insecure.

[NotAboutEgo]

It looks like two world's colliding, and the end result will be wherever the market place or the interest takes it.
I like to watch the gals play sport. In many ways they rely on the fundamentals more to make up for the lack of upper body strength.
Women can be every bit as athletic as the men, it's the strength factor that often leaves them behind.
Intersting discussion.

I agree with you. It has to do with core strength as well. Many people think that women are inferior in skill and talent to men just because they aren't as big or as strong as men on average. They can't seem to separate the size and strength factor from skill and talent. If women and men were equal in size and strength, I bet none of this discussion would be taking place.

[NotAboutEgo]

I'm torn because I'm attracted to women who are athletic (ie. have played sports and are interested in sports) but I have absolutely no interest in watching women that I'm not involved with/friends with play sports. Some on here may call my attitude sexist, but I'm being honest and acknowledge that my thoughts are somewhat hypocritical. I have almost no desire to watch a woman's major league (like not taking free tickets to the WNBA) and I wonder how many more out there think like me?

Before NAE uses my post to say I've proved her point that it's just about changing perceptions and publicity, I will say that I do not believe that men and women are equal athletically and I only support (ie. buy tickets) for sporting events that are the top level (ie. NCAA div 1, and pro sports) unless I am personally related to the event (ie. I attend 1 game each year at my high school). I'm sure (I hope) that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. How do you change my (our) opinion.

When you say you don't believe men and women are equal athletically, are you talking about skill and talent, or are you talking about size and strength... because they are different. Just want to get your viewpoint. Saying that the two aren't equal athletically is really general.

IMO... one reason some people only want to see top events is because they are more interested in power and strength and are less interested in strategy. Our society likes to focus on "who's the biggest, who's the strongest, who's going to dominate the most because of power." It's very evident with what types of movies and TV shows are the most popular... the action, the drama/crime, the gory, and the shoot 'em up/blow 'em up movies. Our society gives less clout to movies that are uplifting, that are emotional, that involve more thinking to figure out. Those are seen as "weak" movies. This carries over into sports, along with the marketing and hipe that makes certain sports popular. It's evident when players who are less powerful and who succeed by strategy and talent and skill over power are less popular than the ones who succeed more by power. Take Placido Polanco, for example. He's a hitting genius and proves it day after day on the field. He's also one of the best fielders in the game. But, he's not one of the most popular players in the league, because he's not a power player.

It all boils down to attitudes. If people are focusing more on power and strength, it will determine what they are interested in. If they focus more on strategy and skill and talent and less on power and strength, their choices probably will be different most of the time.

Most people spend more time living on the outside and rarely ever live on the "inside". Because of it, our society has problems dealing with emotions, and that has every bit to do with the attitudes of society and what happens on the outside. Our society, at least in the U.S., is negative more than it is positive. It breeds feelings of insecurity which equates to fear which equates to the "need" for power and control and dominance because of the insecurity. That's what creates the attitudes of our society, and it is what influences our interests and our actions. Our actions are a reflection upon what/who we become.

Of course, this could be another topic of conversation, even though it relates to what we're talking about but isn't the main topic.

[metfan13]

I offer Ichiro as an example of a very popular player who does not succeed all by power and strength.

I also think that when most people say they prefer to watch the best they are combining all aspects power, speed, strength, strategy, skill, etc. To disregard the power/strength side is as unfair as dismissing the strategy/skill side.

When people say they want to watch the best, that means they want to watch the player/team that would win in a competition. Therefore, the best.

[NotAboutEgo]

I offer Ichiro as an example of a very popular player who does not succeed all by power and strength.

I also think that when most people say they prefer to watch the best they are combining all aspects power, speed, strength, strategy, skill, etc. To disregard the power/strength side is as unfair as dismissing the strategy/skill side.

When people say they want to watch the best, that means they want to watch the player/team that would win in a competition. Therefore, the best.

Yes, but Ichiro is unique. He's one of the few who is popular without the power numbers. Who are the most popular? Most are the ones with the power numbers. There are very few who don't have power numbers who are popular.

I don't agree with dismissing the power/strength side, either. But, it doesn't mean someone isn't good or even great without that same power and strength.

Let's take Polanco again, for an example. Here are some of his stats from 2007 (taken from the Tigers web site)...

Established career highs with 105 runs scored, 200 hits, 36 doubles and 67 RBI in his third season with Detroit. Third in the American League with a .341 batting average, while he was fifth with 200 hits and 10th with 105 runs scored. Toughest batter to strike out in the American League, fanning once every 21.4 plate appearances.

Polanco only had 30 K's and 37 BB's all season... in 587 AB's in 142 games. That's astonishing.

Now let's compare Polanco to Sheffield, another great hitter and probably the hitter with the most power. Polanco had 30 K's, 37 BB's, 9 HR's, a .341 BA, a .388 OBP, and a .458 SLG. Sheffield had 71 K's, 84 BB's, 25 HR's, a .265 BA, a .378 OBP, and a .462 SLG.

Who's the better hitter? Power and strength certainly add to the mix, but they aren't everything. Now, how would a woman do if she received the same type of training and the exact same types of opportunities as these guys received to develop their talents and skills? Perhaps she wouldn't have as much power as most MLB players, but it doesn't mean she wouldn't be able to be a very successful player. And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't take the most size and strength the be able to make solid contact with the ball while hitting, and it doesn't take the most strength and size to learn to be a great hitter and to do other things well. It takes a combination of things, and size and strength aren't always the most important.

Some people like to discredit women and put them down because they lack the size and strength of men, and then they go on to say that women aren't as skilled or talented athletically because they lack the size and strength. I agree that size and strength play an important factor and have never refuted that. But, when size and strength don't play important factors or aren't the most important factors, then the results may be different.

[metfan13]

There are many popular players, Jose Reyes is another, who don't depend on the power game. There always have been. Guys like Rose, Carew, Boggs, Gwynn. On the other hand even these guys used way more strength that even your most athletic women, to be able to play baseball at the level they did.

You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player.

[NotAboutEgo]

From what I could find ski jump has not been included because few countries would be able to send competitors. It's not a widespread sport. I do see that women's ski jump will be added to other international competitions over the next couple of years.

Interesting... these sites are to the contrary of what you're saying about there not being enough countries with women ski jumpers to participate in the olympics. Also, according to final results and the required number of participating countries for a sport to be added to the Olympics, men's ski jumping doesn't qualify.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/06/sportsline/main1283679.shtml


http://www.womensskijumpingusa.com/timeline.htm

WOMEN'S SKI-JUMPING MYTHS

1. There are not enough women involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = The Official FIS web site lists 142 women ski-jumpers, of which 109 are actively competing.

2. There are not enough contries involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = 14 countries are currently active in Women's Ski-Jumping - Austria, Canada, Czech, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Swizterland, Sweden, USA.

3. This is a new discipline, new event and requries extensive review and (sub) committee approvals.

ANSWER=Ski-jumping has been an Olympic sport since 1924. This is not a new discipline or new event. It only requires additional time allocation to allow the women to jump.



http://www.skijumpingcentral.com/behind.htm

Flying Females - Featured Forerunners
Women's ski jumping growing in U.S. and internationally
Although there's not yet a women's ski jumping event at the Olympics, the growth of the sport over the last ten years has been spectacular. Some of the forerunners (trial riders prior to competition) at each of the 2002 Olympic events were women.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147829/



http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2006/11/ski_jumping_wom.html

Ski jumping women grounded
The documentary Jump Like a Girl follows U.S. women who have taken up the sport and the cause of ski jumping. Today, an unhappy ending was tacked onto the film. Women's ski jumping did not make the cut for the 2010 Olympics.

The Olympic charter specifies the criteria for including new events in the Games. (Scroll to page 89 of this PDF file.) At least, the powers that be think it does. It's actually a little muddled. A "sport" must be practised by at least 25 countries on three continents for inclusion in the Winter Games (article 47.1.2), but an "event" needs 35 (47.3.3)? What?

One commentary from Park City, Utah, where the U.S. ski jumpers of both genders train, says of the Olympic charter's 1991 modification: "This loophole has grandfathered in the discrimination against women ski jumpers and continues to allow the IOC to add less developed sports."

Ski jumping and Nordic combined are the only sports in the Winter Olympics open only to men. In the Summer Games, boxing is currently single-gender, though women's boxing is lobbying for inclusion. The other men-only sport, baseball, is on its way out of the Games, along with softball. That will leave synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics as the only sports open only to women.

The IOC also ruled out several "team" events (Alpine skiing, luge, bobsled, skeleton) and a couple of mixed events (biathlon relay, curling doubles).

Making the cut: Skicross (or, by its X Games name, Skier X), which is like snowboardcross except with ski poles and the skis themselves adding to the injury risk. The reaction from Off Wing Opinion: "Why not give them rifles and grenades too? Is that extreme enough for you?"

Snowboardcross was a hit in Torino, and it has been retained for future Games.


Thia last story I posted is VERY interesting. It states that at least 25 countries from at least 3 continents need to be represented in order for a sport to be added to the Olympics. I then looked up the 2006 Olympic results of ski jumping (remember... this is only men's ski jumping). I looked at the individual final rankings for Normal Hill and Large Hill... the two events I saw posted. After counting countries, I found that there are JUST 18 on the list. That seems to be a bit under the "required" 25 countries. In addition, in the Men's K120 Team (interesting how they list it as Men's when there's no women's ski jumping in the Olympics), there are only 16 countries listed in the final results. Also, women's international ski jumping includes 14 countries currently... just 4 under the number of countries participating in men's Olympic ski jumping. Seems that this is about politics and discrimination and stereotypes.

I also find it interesting that most (maybe all... I'm not an expert on foreign names) of the members of the voting committee are men. Hmmmmmmm... It seems to me like there's enough interest and there are enough countries that are already participating in it for women's ski jumping to be added.

[NotAboutEgo]

There are many popular players, Jose Reyes is another, who don't depend on the power game. There always have been. Guys like Rose, Carew, Boggs, Gwynn. On the other hand even these guys used way more strength that even your most athletic women, to be able to play baseball at the level they did.

You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player.

You have to be very conditioned and in great shape. Don't even get on that kick, that women aren't strong enough to last long playing a sport at a professional level. We have babies, so give me a break!

[metfan13]

You have to be very conditioned and in great shape. Don't even get on that kick, that women aren't strong enough to last long playing a sport at a professional level. We have babies, so give me a break!

And what does one have to do with the other? You're talking about women competing on a level with men in baseball and/or other sports. While more than strength comes into play, strength, even for those men whose game doesn't depend on it (as compared to other men) still gives them a decided advantage over women.

[metfan13]

Interesting... these sites are to the contrary of what you're saying about there not being enough countries with women ski jumpers to participate in the olympics. Also, according to final results and the required number of participating countries for a sport to be added to the Olympics, men's ski jumping doesn't qualify.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/06/sportsline/main1283679.shtml


http://www.womensskijumpingusa.com/timeline.htm

WOMEN'S SKI-JUMPING MYTHS

1. There are not enough women involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = The Official FIS web site lists 142 women ski-jumpers, of which 109 are actively competing.

2. There are not enough contries involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

ANSWER = 14 countries are currently active in Women's Ski-Jumping - Austria, Canada, Czech, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Swizterland, Sweden, USA.

3. This is a new discipline, new event and requries extensive review and (sub) committee approvals.

ANSWER=Ski-jumping has been an Olympic sport since 1924. This is not a new discipline or new event. It only requires additional time allocation to allow the women to jump.



http://www.skijumpingcentral.com/behind.htm

Flying Females - Featured Forerunners
Women's ski jumping growing in U.S. and internationally
Although there's not yet a women's ski jumping event at the Olympics, the growth of the sport over the last ten years has been spectacular. Some of the forerunners (trial riders prior to competition) at each of the 2002 Olympic events were women.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147829/



http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2006/11/ski_jumping_wom.html

Ski jumping women grounded
The documentary Jump Like a Girl follows U.S. women who have taken up the sport and the cause of ski jumping. Today, an unhappy ending was tacked onto the film. Women's ski jumping did not make the cut for the 2010 Olympics.

The Olympic charter specifies the criteria for including new events in the Games. (Scroll to page 89 of this PDF file.) At least, the powers that be think it does. It's actually a little muddled. A "sport" must be practised by at least 25 countries on three continents for inclusion in the Winter Games (article 47.1.2), but an "event" needs 35 (47.3.3)? What?

One commentary from Park City, Utah, where the U.S. ski jumpers of both genders train, says of the Olympic charter's 1991 modification: "This loophole has grandfathered in the discrimination against women ski jumpers and continues to allow the IOC to add less developed sports."

Ski jumping and Nordic combined are the only sports in the Winter Olympics open only to men. In the Summer Games, boxing is currently single-gender, though women's boxing is lobbying for inclusion. The other men-only sport, baseball, is on its way out of the Games, along with softball. That will leave synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics as the only sports open only to women.

The IOC also ruled out several "team" events (Alpine skiing, luge, bobsled, skeleton) and a couple of mixed events (biathlon relay, curling doubles).

Making the cut: Skicross (or, by its X Games name, Skier X), which is like snowboardcross except with ski poles and the skis themselves adding to the injury risk. The reaction from Off Wing Opinion: "Why not give them rifles and grenades too? Is that extreme enough for you?"

Snowboardcross was a hit in Torino, and it has been retained for future Games.


Thia last story I posted is VERY interesting. It states that at least 25 countries from at least 3 continents need to be represented in order for a sport to be added to the Olympics. I then looked up the 2006 Olympic results of ski jumping (remember... this is only men's ski jumping). I looked at the individual final rankings for Normal Hill and Large Hill... the two events I saw posted. After counting countries, I found that there are JUST 18 on the list. That seems to be a bit under the "required" 25 countries. In addition, in the Men's K120 Team (interesting how they list it as Men's when there's no women's ski jumping in the Olympics), there are only 16 countries listed in the final results. Also, women's international ski jumping includes 14 countries currently... just 4 under the number of countries participating in men's Olympic ski jumping. Seems that this is about politics and discrimination and stereotypes.

I also find it interesting that most (maybe all... I'm not an expert on foreign names) of the members of the voting committee are men. Hmmmmmmm... It seems to me like there's enough interest and there are enough countries that are already participating in it for women's ski jumping to be added.

I read the first article you posted and in it it mentions numbers who jump, but also questions whether many are even competitive.

I'm also still looking for the data that shows, as you claimed, that women jump farther than men.

[metfan13]

And let me just say that personally, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a women's ski jump competition at the Olympics. But apparently they have rules where you need to have a certain number of international competitions first, then there needs to be enough countries participating, etc.

[NotAboutEgo]

And what does one have to do with the other? You're talking about women competing on a level with men in baseball and/or other sports. While more than strength comes into play, strength, even for those men whose game doesn't depend on it (as compared to other men) still gives them a decided advantage over women.

Think about it. Being pregnant and having a baby is VERY physically demanding and is very hard on the body and also on the emotions (because of spiking hormone levels). That's almost a whole year of physically supporting not only yourself, but another person as well... eating enough, eating right, the physical strain and pain, carrying around excess weight, etc. It's even harder on the body than playing pro sports. Millions and millions of women throughout time have had 10 or more children in their lifetime. My maternal great grandmother had 11 children... all around 2 years apart from the next one. That's over 20 years of being pregnant and having babies. Since a woman is pregnant for around 9 months, that leaves just around 3 months of each of year that my great grandmother wasn't pregnant for those 20+ years.

Now, you're saying a woman wouldn't be able to sustain a pro sports career for 10... 15... 20 years? Give me a break!

So, if a woman was able to compensate for not having as much strength as men do, by training harder, by honing her skills more, by preparing enough, by having enough talent... she would still be able to compete and be successful... even if some men have a just a slight strength and size advantage.

And the point of comparing a Polanco to a Sheffield was to show that even though Sheffield has way more power, Polanco is by far the better hitter as a whole, as is shown by his level of success. I'd take a team full of Polanco's over a team full of power hitters. I'm not degrading power hitters, but Polanco-type hitters are going to give you more day in and day out and therefore, will give you more production.

[NotAboutEgo]

Oh, I forgot. Then, there's the recovery time after having a baby.

[metfan13]

Think about it. Being pregnant and having a baby is VERY physically demanding and is very hard on the body and also on the emotions (because of spiking hormone levels). That's almost a whole year of physically supporting not only yourself, but another person as well... eating enough, eating right, the physical strain and pain, carrying around excess weight, etc. It's even harder on the body than playing pro sports. Millions and millions of women throughout time have had 10 or more children in their lifetime. My maternal great grandmother had 11 children... all around 2 years apart from the next one. That's over 20 years of being pregnant and having babies. Since a woman is pregnant for around 9 months, that leaves just around 3 months of each of year that my great grandmother wasn't pregnant for those 20+ years.

Now, you're saying a woman wouldn't be able to sustain a pro sports career for 10... 15... 20 years? Give me a break!

So, if a woman was able to compensate for not having as much strength as men do, by training harder, by honing her skills more, by preparing enough, by having enough talent... she would still be able to compete and be successful... even if some men have a just a slight strength and size advantage.

And the point of comparing a Polanco to a Sheffield was to show that even though Sheffield has way more power, Polanco is by far the better hitter as a whole, as is shown by his level of success. I'd take a team full of Polanco's over a team full of power hitters. I'm not degrading power hitters, but Polanco-type hitters are going to give you more day in and day out and therefore, will give you more production.

And again, what does one have to do with the other?

That's like saying, if I can run marathons I can have a successful baseball career.

As for Polanco vs. Sheffield, I think you can get a lot of arguements that the Sheffield type is the more valuable player. but all I was doing was giving a few examples of nonpowers who were successful/famous, etc.

[NotAboutEgo]

And again, what does one have to do with the other?

That's like saying, if I can run marathons I can have a successful baseball career.

As for Polanco vs. Sheffield, I think you can get a lot of arguements that the Sheffield type is the more valuable player. but all I was doing was giving a few examples of nonpowers who were successful/famous, etc.

It's NOT saying the same thing. Running a marathon and having a successful baseball career require a different set of skills and talents. Yet, both require physical endurance and conditioning and training. You were talking about strength. If women have the strength to have babies for years and are able to endure it... then they have the strength to play pro sports for a number of years, since having a baby is way more physically demanding. And women DO train to have babies to make the birth process easier. The more one trains, the more they will be prepared. THAT'S the connection.

People who focus on power over production might argue that Sheffield is more valuable. Both are extremely valuable. They compliment one another in their talents and skills... therefore, they are both extremely important to the team. But, Polanco has proven he produces more. Sure, when Sheffield hits the ball, it's a bit more dramatic than when Polanco hits the ball. But, Polanco hardly ever is unsuccessful at getting on base. Polanco was 2nd in hits with the Tigers in 2007 (200) and Sheffield was 7th (131). Polanco had 36 doubles and Sheffield had 20, while Polanco had 3 triples and Sheffield had 1. Polanco had 269 TB's and Sheffield had 228, despite Sheffield having around 2.5 times more BB's than Polanco. Sheffield beat Polanco in runs, RBIs, HRs and SLG. Polanco just knows how to hit... period. Each one has different talents and skills that help them more than others, but power isn't the most dominating factor at all. It's just one of them.

[JeepingBaseball]

oh my god.... the subject that will never cease or die lol

gone for a couple of months and i havent missed a thing!

[NotAboutEgo]

Core strength to be able to hit a baseball far or to be able to throw a baseball hard is not the same as having the strength to endure/persevere a long baseball season. The strength to endure/persevere has to do more with physically conditioning and training and also with the power of one's mind. It's not about sheer core muscle mass/strength or physical size.

[metfan13]

It's NOT saying the same thing. Running a marathon and having a successful baseball career require a different set of skills and talents. Yet, both require physical endurance and conditioning and training. You were talking about strength. If women have the strength to have babies for years and are able to endure it... then they have the strength to play pro sports for a number of years, since having a baby is way more physically demanding. And women DO train to have babies to make the birth process easier. The more one trains, the more they will be prepared. THAT'S the connection.

People who focus on power over production might argue that Sheffield is more valuable. Both are extremely valuable. They compliment one another in their talents and skills... therefore, they are both extremely important to the team. But, Polanco has proven he produces more. Sure, when Sheffield hits the ball, it's a bit more dramatic than when Polanco hits the ball. But, Polanco hardly ever is unsuccessful at getting on base. Polanco was 2nd in hits with the Tigers in 2007 (200) and Sheffield was 7th (131). Polanco had 36 doubles and Sheffield had 20, while Polanco had 3 triples and Sheffield had 1. Polanco had 269 TB's and Sheffield had 228, despite Sheffield having around 2.5 times more BB's than Polanco. Sheffield beat Polanco in runs, RBIs, HRs and SLG. Polanco just knows how to hit... period. Each one has different talents and skills that help them more than others, but power isn't the most dominating factor at all. It's just one of them.


You're talking about different kinds of strengths with your analogy just as I am.

[NotAboutEgo]

You're talking about different kinds of strengths with your analogy just as I am.

One of dictionary.com's definitions of strength is:

1. the quality or state of being strong; bodily or muscular power; vigor.


It's definition of stamina (an synonym of endurance) is:

stam·i·na1 /ˈstæmənə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stam-uh-nuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun strength of physical constitution; power to endure disease, fatigue, privation, etc.


Stamina/endurance, or strength of physical condition, is what determines whether one lasts or not. Core strength, level of bodily/muscular strength, is not the same. Having a baby takes conditining in the form of breathing exercises and physical conditioning, and things like meditation help... therefore, endurance/stamina. The more one is conditioned, the easier the birthing process will be for her. The same as an athlete... the more conditioned and prepared they are, the longer they will last during the season without burning out. That doesn't mean they are the strongest in terms of core strength (body/muscle strength).

You stated that women aren't strong enough to handle playing a pro sports season. Core strength doesn't determine whether one is conditioned or not. Conditioning (or in other terms, preparation and state of the body and mind in order to do so) does.

[metfan13]

Actually I never said women aren't strong enough to handle playing a pro sports season. WNBA players already do. (Though their season is shorter)

You have a habit of latching onto part of a statement and running with it.

I did say that players like Rose, Gwynn, Boggs, etc had to be strong to have the long careers they did. Even though they aren't considered power players.

[NotAboutEgo]

Actually I never said women aren't strong enough to handle playing a pro sports season. WNBA players already do. (Though their season is shorter)

You have a habit of latching onto part of a statement and running with it.

I did say that players like Rose, Gwynn, Boggs, etc had to be strong to have the long careers they did. Even though they aren't considered power players.

You stated, "You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player." We had been talking about men having size and strength advantages over women. When talking about players who are not power players, I stated that if a woman had the same opportunities to develop as men had, then she would be able to be successful as a non-power play. You said one has to be very strong to make it even as a non-power player... even if you didn't say it directly, it sounds like you are inferring that women are not strong enough, since they are not considered very strong compared to men. If you weren't inferring that, then I don't know what the point of stating it was.

I run with certain things, because a lot of people say a lot of crap on here... based on opinions taken from stereotypes and myths but not taken from fact... one of them being that skill and talent is the same as strength and power and that women aren't as skilled or talented because they lack the same strength and power of men.

Like I said before, if women and men were equal in size and strength/power, would we be having these discussions?

[metfan13]

You stated, "You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player." We had been talking about men having size and strength advantages over women. When talking about players who are not power players, I stated that if a woman had the same opportunities to develop as men had, then she would be able to be successful as a non-power play. You said one has to be very strong to make it even as a non-power player... even if you didn't say it directly, it sounds like you are inferring that women are not strong enough, since they are not considered very strong compared to men. If you weren't inferring that, then I don't know what the point of stating it was.

I run with certain things, because a lot of people say a lot of crap on here... based on opinions taken from stereotypes and myths but not taken from fact... one of them being that skill and talent is the same as strength and power and that women aren't as skilled or talented because they lack the same strength and power of men.

Like I said before, if women and men were equal in size and strength/power, would we be having these discussions?

I doubt you'll find the woman able to compete at the major league level with the strength of even the non-power hitters I mentioned. Again what that has to do with childbirth, I don't know.

[digglahhh]

The original militia act only included males from the age of 17 to 45. That is the same age group that is used for the military draft if I am not mistaken.

In terms of discrimination and constitutional law, its pretty simple. If an organization or company is in anyway benefitting from public funds (which the MLB is because of funded stadiums) than it has to abide by the Equal Employer guidelines.

Now on the other hand if the MLB totally funded everything by itself, it has every right as a private entity to associate or not associate (the first amendment) with anyone it pleases. And that includes black folk back in the day. Whether its morally right is a whole nother story.

I guess thats why america has so many lawers. We have alot of city, state and federal laws.

Again, not my area of expertise, but I don't believe this is correct.

Private entities still have to abide by Constitutional law. No entity, private of public can discriminate on the basis of race. It is a fully protected class, meaning that the burden to prove the justification of discriminating by race is almost impossible to meet.

Gender is not in the same legal class as race, religion, and (now duplicative?) creed. This means that it is possible to justify discrimination based upon gender, gender is a semi-protected class. It is pretty difficult to create a compelling enough argument, but it can be done.

Discrimination against non-protected classes (you can't ride the rollercoaster if you are over X amount of pounds or something) are very easy to discriminate against, in a legal sense. The burden of proof one needs to justify the policy is pretty light.

An entity being private or public isn't the determining factor.

[digglahhh]

The reason women weren't allowed in the military in the past is point-blank discrimination... just like most everything in our society has been throughout history.

I wasn't talking about volunteering for military service. I was talking about the draft.

[digglahhh]

double post.

[NotAboutEgo]

I wasn't talking about volunteering for military service. I was talking about the draft.

From what I remember, I was replying to Captlid's post.

[digglahhh]

From what I remember, I was replying to Captlid's post.

Yeah, but she was replying to mine.

I think she may have misinterpreted what I said, and then you piggy-backed on it.

I just wanted to be clear that I was speaking about women being excluded from involuntary military service, not voluntary service.

[digglahhh]

NAE,

I'm usually with you in these discussions, but I'm at a loss as to what childbirth has to do with the topic. Certainly not all women "train" for childbirth. Childbirth is the most natural activity there is. I grew up seeing girls hide pregnancies, carry babies to term with no pre-natal care - no healthcare, whatsoever. Childbirth most certainly requires strength, but it is a condition and experience a woman assumes without choice - there's is no weeding the strong from the weak (neglecting abortion for the moment), once you're pregnant you have no choice but to endure the pain (and joy) that accompanies it. Having the strength for childbirth doesn't translate to having the strength needed to compete in high level athletics, per se.

Charger,

I notice that in your posts to NAE, you call her a feminist. The way you use the word, in terms of the construction and tone of the sentence, sounds as if you are using at almost as an insult. I consider myself a feminist (though not exclusively a feminist, and not a feminist of any specific school of feminist). All it means to be a feminist is to believe that a woman's sex should not be sufficient reason to deny her opportunities available to men. Some devote themselves to such a cause to a greater degree than others, but there are many schools feminism, and many ways in which it is expressed. You seem as if when you say "feminist" you picture some pushy, unshaven woman with chip on her shoulder trying to shove you out of line so she can stand at the urinal. To many, Madonna is a renowned feminist. Helen Keller was a renowned feminist (though nothing after her childhood is ever really discussed since she became an ardent socialist). Feminism is really just about pride and human decency.

[NotAboutEgo]

NAE,

I'm usually with you in these discussions, but I'm at a loss as to what childbirth has to do with the topic. Certainly not all women "train" for childbirth. Childbirth is the most natural activity there is. I grew up seeing girls hide pregnancies, carry babies to term with no pre-natal care - no healthcare, whatsoever. Childbirth most certainly requires strength, but it is a condition and experience a woman assumes without choice - there's is no weeding the strong from the weak (neglecting abortion for the moment), once you're pregnant you have no choice but to endure the pain (and joy) that accompanies it. Having the strength for childbirth doesn't translate to having the strength needed to compete in high level athletics, per se.

I understand what you are saying, but my analogy was stating that, even if having a child can be something that is not voluntary and one needs to endure it, if someone can bear the pain of childbirth and put up with everything that being pregnant puts one through, then that same person should be able to sustain a long athletic season. A woman is pregnant for 9 months, give or take a little time, and during most of that time, she is very uncomfortable and in many cases, she's in pain and is sick. Regardless of whether it's voluntary or not, it's something that women have been enduring.

So, since women can endure being pregnant and having a child, which is much harder on the body (as I've already stated) than playing sports, whether it's voluntary or not, why would she not be able to sustain a high level athletic season/career?

Many people think that women are too weak (by spirit, by mind and by body) to be high level athletes and endure long seasons and careers. That's all myth. The myth comes from the insecurity of one's mind.

Anyway, even it the analogy doesn't make sense to some, the point is, women are not too weak of mind or body or spirit to be a high level pro athlete like metfan inferred. It's the same old stereotype as a woman will never be able to compete with a man.

All one needs to do is train to be able to have the endurance to make it through a season and a career. Women are not exempt from being able to do that. One doesn't need to be extremely muscular to do so.

[metfan13]

I also was talking about doing it over many years when you brought up that analogy. I still think it is a poor analogy. What it takes to do one is different from the other.

[TG Coach]

Women are not inferior in talent. They are only smaller and not as strong physically, on average, than males. That's the ONLY things men can brag about. Talent doesn't come from size and strength.

While size isn't the end all to talent since there are a handful of successful, smaller players, in the overall context of competitive sports this is one of the most ignorant, head in the sand, feminist statements I've seen.

[TG Coach]

oh my god.... the subject that will never cease or die lol

gone for a couple of months and i havent missed a thing!

It's the same feminist, head in the sand crap. There isn't a market for women's pro sports. If there was a market there would be a league and it would last. Even pro sports with plenty of women athletes don't last ... soccer, basketball (only pro league that hasn't folded is subsidized by the NBA) and softball which has closed seasons early and re-orged three times. A female pro athlete can't compete with a top level high school male athlete. Ask Mia Hamm. She made that statement.

[TG Coach]

It would also be wise for USA Baseball to develop more women's national teams.

Why? Because you want it? Not reason enough.

[TG Coach]

There are plenty of inequalities in the publicity of amateur sports across the board. HS is a perfect example. Women's sports don't get nearly the same publicity as men's sports do... much less, the same support in terms of equipment, practice time, scheduling, etc. The same goes for women's sports in colleges.


It's because for the most part it's boring to watch. There are very few successful women's sports teams from a business standpoint. There are a handful in college basketball like Connecticut and Tennessee.

[TG Coach]

Think about it. Being pregnant and having a baby is VERY physically demanding and is very hard on the body and also on the emotions (because of spiking hormone levels). That's almost a whole year of physically supporting not only yourself, but another person as well... eating enough, eating right, the physical strain and pain, carrying around excess weight, etc. It's even harder on the body than playing pro sports. Millions and millions of women throughout time have had 10 or more children in their lifetime. My maternal great grandmother had 11 children... all around 2 years apart from the next one. That's over 20 years of being pregnant and having babies. Since a woman is pregnant for around 9 months, that leaves just around 3 months of each of year that my great grandmother wasn't pregnant for those 20+ years.

Now, you're saying a woman wouldn't be able to sustain a pro sports career for 10... 15... 20 years? Give me a break!

So, if a woman was able to compensate for not having as much strength as men do, by training harder, by honing her skills more, by preparing enough, by having enough talent... she would still be able to compete and be successful... even if some men have a just a slight strength and size advantage.

And the point of comparing a Polanco to a Sheffield was to show that even though Sheffield has way more power, Polanco is by far the better hitter as a whole, as is shown by his level of success. I'd take a team full of Polanco's over a team full of power hitters. I'm not degrading power hitters, but Polanco-type hitters are going to give you more day in and day out and therefore, will give you more production.

You should do stand up. This justs gets funnier and funnier. You have no clue of the physical demands on a professional athlete.

[TG Coach]

The truth will keep her pissed off and busy for a while. And don't forget to include the insults.

[JeepingBaseball]

Cant we all just listen to Barry Manilow and get along?


(that was a joke)

[captlid]

From a business standpoint it makes absolute no sense for the mlb or any other entity to invest its resources to train a woman. Durability is not the issue cause plenty of girls play softball all season around in california and the rest of the country at young ages. The only advantage is that the league would be able to project her earlier due to earlier onset of puberty.

The scouts are always going to look for a pitcher who can gun the ball, because they figure they can teach them how to pitch. But they cant teach them a live arm. On top of that there will only be about a handful of women who even get to that level with alot of training.

I dont think there will ever be women who are phsyically powerful enough to be a decent hitter in today's game. Even Ichiro can hit homeruns in bp, but he can't do it in a game. Even if you find a 6ft tall lefty pitcher who could at least break 90 with movement on her pitches there's too many downsides.

1. locker room issues
2. mental draining on the player herself due to constant media coverage, harrasment from others.
3. the question of "did she take a deserving guy's spot"
4. being the poster girl for feminism which alot of our country detests even though the player herself probably just wants to play ball and thats all.
5. jealous wives, girlfriends etc...
6. the perception that if an mlb team does that, they did it as a cheap publicity stunt for short term financial gain. No team wants to lose their credibility like that.
7. Perception that she's a lesbian. Hurts a team's bottom line if they promote themselves as family friendly.

Another aspect is that there is alot of baseball out there already. MLB, minor league affiliates, indy's, semi-pro, winter ball. There does not seem to be any room to fit a self-supporting wmlb anywhere into that. Someone mentioned this earlier, that if a wmlb existed how would it differentiate itself from whats already offered? Just being the opposite gender is not going to cut it. With the dismal history of other women's team sports investors are hesitant to put in money into ventures like this.

NPF team owners are losing money. Women's soccer is gone. No surprise considering that americans dont even like to watch soccer to begin with. The wnba would die without piggybacking on the nba. I doubt coors recouped its investment from the silver bullets team.

Sure its nice that more mlb and mlib teams are offering women's baseball clinics. But they are doing that in terms of getting women as fans. Not in the future hope as a player investment. As long as it helps the bottom line they will do it. Bottom line a woman player is not good enough return on investment in today's game.

[NotAboutEgo]

For those of you who are uninformed (ignorant) about the definition of feminist and talk about it in a derogatory sense, here it is...


fem·i·nism /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fem-uh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1890–95; < F féminisme; see feminine, -ism]

—Related forms
fem·i·nist, noun, adjective
fem·i·nis·tic, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This fem·i·nist (fěm'ə-nĭst) Pronunciation Key
n. A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.

adj. Relating to feminism.

fem'i·nis'tic adj.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This feminist

adjective
1. of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women; "feminist critique"

noun
1. a supporter of feminism

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

[TG Coach]

Our local pro soccer team advertised like crazy in the papers and on radio. The players did many public appearances. They were lucky to have 500 at the games with 200 paid.

Our 14U travel baseball team played a USSSA Super NIT this year in the same stadium a NPF team plays. The 14U tournament outdrew the softball team. I was told there were more people in the stands for the championship game than the most attended softball game.

[digglahhh]

I understand what you are saying, but my analogy was stating that, even if having a child can be something that is not voluntary and one needs to endure it, if someone can bear the pain of childbirth and put up with everything that being pregnant puts one through, then that same person should be able to sustain a long athletic season. A woman is pregnant for 9 months, give or take a little time, and during most of that time, she is very uncomfortable and in many cases, she's in pain and is sick. Regardless of whether it's voluntary or not, it's something that women have been enduring.

Pardon the potentially offensive analogy, but does that mean that, say, any Jew who survived a concentration camp would be ideally suited to stand the rigors of an full season of athletics, and vigorous off-season workouts?

The human body (and mind) is able to deal with much greater adversity than many of us realize - all human bodies. An argument based upon a body's ability to handle stress would imply that all individuals are capable of such stresses.

But, one, it is not just the stresses, it is the unique talents that necessitate specific development that are the pillars of athletic success. And, two, don't underestimate the voluntary/involuntary aspect, the commitment and dedication is as important as, if not more so, than the physical abilities and tolerance.

It's just like school - which is more difficult for the child, the "work" of reading the book, or the act of putting down the Playstation controller? It's the commitment that determines if talent will be actualized, regardless of the extent to which that talent exists.

[digglahhh]

It's the same feminist, head in the sand crap. There isn't a market for women's pro sports. If there was a market there would be a league and it would last. Even pro sports with plenty of women athletes don't last ... soccer, basketball (only pro league that hasn't folded is subsidized by the NBA) and softball which has closed seasons early and re-orged three times. A female pro athlete can't compete with a top level high school male athlete. Ask Mia Hamm. She made that statement.

Is there a market for competitive skateboarding?

For celebrity poker games?

For playground basketball?


Now think about how you would answer those questions if they were posed to you twenty years ago.

Markets don't exist out of some divine order, they are created.

That's why it's called MARKETing!

[digglahhh]

You should do stand up. This justs gets funnier and funnier. You have no clue of the physical demands on a professional athlete.

If only people practiced what they preached...

Then maybe those who lack the understanding of the demands of well-reasoned argumentation and civil debate wouldn't be so eager to participate...

You make one valid point (over and over). It has not been proven that viable markets exist for the activities in discussion to be pursued as business ventures.

When the counterargument that attempts to find and develop markets have been insufficiently explored, and that there are many sociological obstacles that make it difficult to bring the best possible product to a (theoretical or existing) market, your line of reasonable argumentation ceases. What follows is naive chest-thumping and a blind acceptance of the status quo that you masquerade as "your opinion."

It is the same "skeleton" of opinion that justified all discrimination of the past.

Note, I am not insinuating that women have a "right" to a professional baseball league any more or less than men do.

But, things like "best quality" are matters of taste - we're not measuring the purity of cocaine here, this stuff is subjective... For example, many people talk about men's college basketball as being of a higher quality game, or more pure, than the NBA, though the level of athletic skill and strength on the whole is barely comparable. It is TASTE.

[NotAboutEgo]

Pardon the potentially offensive analogy, but does that mean that, say, any Jew who survived a concentration camp would be ideally suited to stand the rigors of an full season of athletics, and vigorous off-season workouts?

If they (or anyone else withstanding such abuse) could survive (by mind, spirit, and body) something so horrible, then being able to make it through a pro sports season or several sports season would be doable. It doesn't mean that they still wouldn't have to work hard to keep their bodies in shape and work on honing their talents and skills more, but if the human can withstand something that's much more painful and stressful and incredibly unhappy, then the ability to make it through umpteen pro sports seasons exist.


The human body (and mind) is able to deal with much greater adversity than many of us realize - all human bodies. An argument based upon a body's ability to handle stress would imply that all individuals are capable of such stresses.

But, one, it is not just the stresses, it is the unique talents that necessitate specific development that are the pillars of athletic success. And, two, don't underestimate the voluntary/involuntary aspect, the commitment and dedication is as important as, if not more so, than the physical abilities and tolerance.

True. I never said anything underestimating dedication and voluntary actions. I just simply said, that if women are able to handle pregnancy and childbirth, then they would have the strength by mind, body, and spirit to be able to play several pro sports seasons. I also said that, contrary to popular belief, one doesn't need to be bulked in muscles to be able to play pro sports, and they don't have to be men. I agree that it takes a lot of hard work, dedication, motivation, honing skills and talents, etc. It also takes a lot of conditioning, which involves more than building muscular strength. But all of that is NOT impossible for the woman to achieve, like many have stated on here.

Perhaps it takes me a while to explain exactly what I'm trying to say. But, by not mentioning all the hard work it takes to play pro sports, it doesn't mean I think it's a walk through the park on a nice, warm, sunny day. I just stated that it's something that's not impossible for women to achieve... regardless of what the male chauvinists say.


It's just like school - which is more difficult for the child, the "work" of reading the book, or the act of putting down the Playstation controller? It's the commitment that determines if talent will be actualized, regardless of the extent to which that talent exists.

I agree completely.

[NotAboutEgo]

Is there a market for competitive skateboarding?

For celebrity poker games?

For playground basketball?


Now think about how you would answer those questions if they were posed to you twenty years ago.

Markets don't exist out of some divine order, they are created.

That's why it's called MARKETing!

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :highfive:

[metfan13]

If they (or anyone else withstanding such abuse) could survive (by mind, spirit, and body) something so horrible, then being able to make it through a pro sports season or several sports season would be doable. It doesn't mean that they still wouldn't have to work hard to keep their bodies in shape and work on honing their talents and skills more, but if the human can withstand something that's much more painful and stressful and incredibly unhappy, then the ability to make it through umpteen pro sports seasons exist.



True. I never said anything underestimating dedication and voluntary actions. I just simply said, that if women are able to handle pregnancy and childbirth, then they would have the strength by mind, body, and spirit to be able to play several pro sports seasons. I also said that, contrary to popular belief, one doesn't need to be bulked in muscles to be able to play pro sports, and they don't have to be men. I agree that it takes a lot of hard work, dedication, motivation, honing skills and talents, etc. It also takes a lot of conditioning, which involves more than building muscular strength. But all of that is NOT impossible for the woman to achieve, like many have stated on here.

Perhaps it takes me a while to explain exactly what I'm trying to say. But, by not mentioning all the hard work it takes to play pro sports, it doesn't mean I think it's a walk through the park on a nice, warm, sunny day. I just stated that it's something that's not impossible for women to achieve... regardless of what the male chauvinists say.

I agree completely.

And here again I think your aguement breaksdown. Using your analogy or the example digglahhh did, both have nothing to do with the ability to perform successfully over multiple pro seasons.

And no you don't have to be bulked up to play baseball, but to perform successfully at the major league level and over an extended period of time, you must be strong physically.

[metfan13]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :highfive:

But there must be a market.

how many things have been marketed and failed miserably?

[NotAboutEgo]

Our local pro soccer team advertised like crazy in the papers and on radio. The players did many public appearances. They were lucky to have 500 at the games with 200 paid.

Our 14U travel baseball team played a USSSA Super NIT this year in the same stadium a NPF team plays. The 14U tournament outdrew the softball team. I was told there were more people in the stands for the championship game than the most attended softball game.

Where are men's pro lacrosse, men's pro arena football, and men's pro soccer in the market in the U.S.? It seems that those men's pro sports are close to being obscure. Why... lack of financial backing and perhaps lack of dollars to advertise and market effectively... or maybe whoever's running the leagues isn't interested in or is unaware of how to market effectively? Who knows. Maybe it's because men's pro football, baseball, basketball, and hockey have dominated as the top sports in the U.S. market for a long time, and other pro sports are having a hard time cracking into the market share. Most of us would most likely surely agree that there are/could be several factors which influence why something doesn't take hold in a specific market, and quality (whatever that is... which is very subjective and is something different to each person, as Digglahhh has already stated) isn't the only determining factor.

All I can say is, I'm very happy to have the mindset to be able to enjoy sports from many different arenas... including but not limited to men's pro sports of all kinds, women's pro sports of all kinds, amateur sports including youth sports, sports for mentally and physically challenged people and athletes, Olympic sports, etc.

What do you think about sports for the mentally and physically challenged? Do you think they are inferior to men's pro sports, and do you think they don't deserve to have similar/the same opportunities and promotion, since they aren't the same as men's pro sports?

[NotAboutEgo]

And here again I think your aguement breaksdown. Using your analogy or the example digglahhh did, both have nothing to do with the ability to perform successfully over multiple pro seasons.

And no you don't have to be bulked up to play baseball, but to perform successfully at the major league level and over an extended period of time, you must be strong physically.

Yes, one must be strong physically... meaning, in shape... which entails conditioning one's self in many ways... building endurance cardiovascularly and strengthening other organs, cells, and other micro-components of the body, strength training, eating well to enhance overall physical condition, getting sufficient sleep regularly, etc.... also, one must be strong mentally (by mind)... building a strong work ethic for practicing and playing, having determination, being able to handle the physical and mental stresses of playing pro sports, knowing how to be competitive in a respective way, having a positive and progressive state of mind, etc... and being strong spiritually (not talking about religion here), which I don't think some on here think or understand in those terms.

Yes, our examples are connected with being able to perform over multiple seasons. The ability for anyone to be able to do it is there. It doesn't mean that ability will be utilized in all cases with all people, but the inherent ability is there. It's not something that was given exclusively to males and not even exclusively to pro athletes. Perhaps many people don't have the inherent talent and abilities to be skillful at sports to play them professionally like pro athleteso, or maybe they aren't even interested in playing pro sports whether or not they were given the inherent talent and abilities. But, the inherent ability to take one's self to a higher level is there... which includes making it through multiple pro seasons.

[SABR Steve]

Barry Manilow wouldn't appear on "The View," because he disagreed with the views of Elizabeth Hasselbach (sp).

What a loser.

[NotAboutEgo]

But there must be a market.

how many things have been marketed and failed miserably?

A market is CREATED. It's not something that exists out of no where. The market for MLB was also created. If you take a look at the attendance history for MLB teams and MLB as a whole, before the TV was invented, MLB games drew crowds of around 4,000 to 7,000 people (the average is somewhere around 5,000). Those are the same numbers of fans in attendance that many minor league teams now achieve. As soon as the TV was invented and MLB games started being broadcast on TV, the numbers of fans started growing. The numbers of fans in attendance at MLB games have grown since then in parallel to the growth in the numbers of TVs that have been sold annually throughout the U.S., especially in the past 15-20 years or so. Record crowds continue to happen year after year, and it's not just the success of the team that influences that. There are many factors influencing it.

I showed the comparison of these numbers a while back on here... and the numbers parallel each other.

Yes, many things have been marketed, and many things have failed and will continue to fail. Marketing doesn't guarantee success. I think most of us are aware of that. But, there are a lot of factors which influence whether something survives or not, and stereotypes, discrimination, AND the status quo are some of them.

Again, why does one of the top pro men's hockey teams in the NHL (Red Wings) have to offer $9 seats and $1 hot dog days to get fans into its seats? Is it the quality of the team that is losing fans? Obviously not. To reiterate again, several factors influence success or lack of success of an entity.

It's not rocket science. Most of it, if not all of it, is plain common sense.

[metfan13]

Yes, one must be strong physically... meaning, in shape... which entails conditioning one's self in many ways... building endurance cardiovascularly and strengthening other organs, cells, and other micro-components of the body, strength training, eating well to enhance overall physical condition, getting sufficient sleep regularly, etc.... also, one must be strong mentally (by mind)... building a strong work ethic for practicing and playing, having determination, being able to handle the physical and mental stresses of playing pro sports, knowing how to be competitive in a respective way, having a positive and progressive state of mind, etc... and being strong spiritually (not talking about religion here), which I don't think some on here think or understand in those terms.

Yes, our examples are connected with being able to perform over multiple seasons. The ability for anyone to be able to do it is there. It doesn't mean that ability will be utilized in all cases with all people, but the inherent ability is there. It's not something that was given exclusively to males and not even exclusively to pro athletes. Perhaps many people don't have the inherent talent and abilities to be skillful at sports to play them professionally like pro athleteso, or maybe they aren't even interested in playing pro sports whether or not they were given the inherent talent and abilities. But, the inherent ability to take one's self to a higher level is there... which includes making it through multiple pro seasons.


My wife gave birth to twins. What that has to do with an ability to play major league baseball, I don't know.

No man can give birth to twins, yet a select few can play major league baseball.

I still don't see how any of this ties together.

[metfan13]

A market is CREATED. It's not something that exists out of no where. The market for MLB was also created. If you take a look at the attendance history for MLB teams and MLB as a whole, before the TV was invented, MLB games drew crowds of around 4,000 to 7,000 people (the average is somewhere around 5,000). Those are the same numbers of fans in attendance that many minor league teams now achieve. As soon as the TV was invented and MLB games started being broadcast on TV, the numbers of fans started growing. The numbers of fans in attendance at MLB games have grown since then in parallel to the growth in the numbers of TVs that have been sold annually throughout the U.S., especially in the past 15-20 years or so. Record crowds continue to happen year after year, and it's not just the success of the team that influences that. There are many factors influencing it.

I showed the comparison of these numbers a while back on here... and the numbers parallel each other.

Yes, many things have been marketed, and many things have failed and will continue to fail. Marketing doesn't guarantee success. I think most of us are aware of that. But, there are a lot of factors which influence whether something survives or not, and stereotypes, discrimination, AND the status quo are some of them.

Again, why does one of the top pro men's hockey teams in the NHL (Red Wings) have to offer $9 seats and $1 hot dog days to get fans into its seats? Is it the quality of the team that is losing fans? Obviously not. To reiterate again, several factors influence success or lack of success of an entity.

It's not rocket science. Most of it, if not all of it, is plain common sense.

I think you're forgetting about the baby boom and the increase in people available to go to games. What was the US population before the advent of TV and the population today?

[NotAboutEgo]

My wife gave birth to twins. What that has to do with an ability to play major league baseball, I don't know.

No man can give birth to twins, yet a select few can play major league baseball.

I still don't see how any of this ties together.

Look beyond your nose. I said it's connected to being able to make it through a pro sports seasons and multiple pro sports seasons... in terms of what one can endure by mind, body, and spirit. It's not something that only men can handle.

I never said that a woman possesses the talent and ability and skills (the skillset for baseball) it takes to play pro baseball just because she can endure pregnancy and childbirth.

It has to do with strength of body, mind, and spirit... overall strength... and is not solely determined by how much muscle one has. Men aren't so high and mighty to solely possess it. Everyone has the inherent ability to be able to condition themself to do so.

How many other ways does it need to be stated?

[metfan13]

Look beyond your nose. I said it's connected to being able to make it through a pro sports seasons and multiple pro sports seasons... in terms of what one can endure by mind, body, and spirit. It's not something that only men can handle.

I never said that a woman possesses the talent and ability and skills (the skillset for baseball) it takes to play pro baseball just because she can endure pregnancy and childbirth.

It has to do with strength of body, mind, and spirit... overall strength... and is not solely determined by how much muscle one has. Men aren't so high and mighty to solely possess it. Everyone has the inherent ability to be able to condition themself to do so.

How many other ways does it need to be stated?

Only until you understand.

You mention strength of body, mind and spirit. And one you CAN'T succeed in pro sports without is strength of body. It's not there on an even level.

Oh and in your other post you understated the average attendance by a bit. First post war year, and pretty much before TV - 1946, average attendance was closer to 13-14 thousand. Even back in the 20's before the depression is was a decent amount over 5K

[digglahhh]

True. I never said anything underestimating dedication and voluntary actions. I just simply said, that if women are able to handle pregnancy and childbirth, then they would have the strength by mind, body, and spirit to be able to play several pro sports seasons.

Okay. I think I get what you are saying now. The strength exhibited by a woman having a baby is not a testament to a woman's strength as it relates to being able to perform in any sport per se, but is more evidence that the notion of long term muscular endurance is not a foreign concept to the female body.

In that respect, I think it still may be apples to oranges, but it makes a lot more sense from a logical standpoint.

[NotAboutEgo]

I think you're forgetting about the baby boom and the increase in people available to go to games. What was the US population before the advent of TV and the population today?

A soar in population doesn't directly relate to/influence a soar in fans in attendance at baseball games. The interest to attend games still has to be there, and that interest is heightened by promotional tools such as the TV... and now, the Internet... to name a couple.

According to this site, the U.S. population has steadily risen throughout its history, and the baby boom wasn't cited as influencing the population increase. Historically, populations tend to increase.

Also, seeing the numbers of U.S. population throughout history since the U.S. began the census, the numbers rise at a pretty steady pace with no significant spikes from one decade to another... and, the larger increases in population have happened well after the invention of and most significant rises in the TV. The time in which the numbers of TVs in U.S. homes rose the most doesn't have any kind of population boom. The rise in population then is steady with the historical rise in population.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-population-of-the-us-throughout-its-history.htm

The population of the United States has continued to increase since independence. A census has been conducted at the beginning of each decade since 1790. The numbers are acquired in a variety of ways including door-to-door polling, but the Census Bureau never has counted every individual. In addition to general population information, the Census Bureau also collects other data ranging from ethnicity to income to housing.

U.S. population growth is attributable to a positive difference between immigration and emigration (net international migration) and to the birth rate exceeding the death rate (natural increase). Over half of recent increases are due to natural increase.

The Census Bureau also provides projections for the future, but these are highly speculative. We have shown their 'middle estimates' extending to 2100.


It seems that your speculation is quite inaccurate.

[digglahhh]

But there must be a market.

how many things have been marketed and failed miserably?

Yeah, but this a question of the chicken and the egg.

Actually, it is more a question of whether you have to actually see something to determine if it exists.

Many things have been marketed and failed. Some of those things were marketed poorly, or prematurely, and subsequently succeeded in the future, or under different marketing campaigns. Somethings have presumably been marketed well but did not catch on because they were crappy product, Gigli anybody....

At the same time, many poor quality products have been marketed successfully in the past.

Tastes change over time, and our preferences can be influenced by marketing. Markets for products can be created, they can be expanded, or narrowed. We've seen this over and over.

And how do you know which markets exist, and which do not? I assume you pioneered and made fortunes off of the Pet Rock, X-Games, belly button rings... If you truly have this clairvoyance, stop wasting your time here and go make billions investing in the volatile, yet potentially ultra-lucrative field of "emerging markets."

If markets just existed, and we knew what they were, market research wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry, and something called "emerging markets" wouldn't be the hottest investment class on Wall Street.

A lot of it also depends on the scope of the imagined leagues. I think it would be foolish to assume women's baseball could build a market the size of that for men's pro baseball, but could it support itself to the point of being self-sustaining?

[metfan13]

A soar in population doesn't directly relate to/influence a soar in fans in attendance at baseball games. The interest to attend games still has to be there, and that interest is heightened by promotional tools such as the TV... and now, the Internet... to name a couple.

According to this site, the U.S. population has steadily risen throughout its history, and the baby boom wasn't cited as influencing the population increase. Historically, populations tend to increase.

Also, seeing the numbers of U.S. population throughout history since the U.S. began the census, the numbers rise at a pretty steady pace with no significant spikes from one decade to another... and, the larger increases in population have happened well after the invention of and most significant rises in the TV. The time in which the numbers of TVs in U.S. homes rose the most doesn't have any kind of population boom. The rise in population then is steady with the historical rise in population.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-population-of-the-us-throughout-its-history.htm

The population of the United States has continued to increase since independence. A census has been conducted at the beginning of each decade since 1790. The numbers are acquired in a variety of ways including door-to-door polling, but the Census Bureau never has counted every individual. In addition to general population information, the Census Bureau also collects other data ranging from ethnicity to income to housing.

U.S. population growth is attributable to a positive difference between immigration and emigration (net international migration) and to the birth rate exceeding the death rate (natural increase). Over half of recent increases are due to natural increase.

The Census Bureau also provides projections for the future, but these are highly speculative. We have shown their 'middle estimates' extending to 2100.


It seems that your speculation is quite inaccurate.

I'm sure that if you look at the numbers you'll see that the 1950's (baby boom) had a higher percentage of increase in population than following decades.

[NotAboutEgo]

Only until you understand.

You mention strength of body, mind and spirit. And one you CAN'T succeed in pro sports without is strength of body. It's not there on an even level.

Oh and in your other post you understated the average attendance by a bit. First post war year, and pretty much before TV - 1946, average attendance was closer to 13-14 thousand. Even back in the 20's before the depression is was a decent amount over 5K

Historical MLB attendance since 1901...
http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/mlbattendance.htm

TV timeline...
http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Television_Time.htm

http://www.history1700s.com/store/television.shtml — note that it says that in 1936, fewer than 200 TVs were sold worldwide. Also, note all the other things this web page says.

The first TV broadcast of MLB games was in 1939.

From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television

An estimated 19,000 electronic television sets were manufactured in Britain, and about 1,600 in Germany, before World War II. About 7,000-8,000 electronic sets were made in the U.S. before the War Production Board halted manufacture in April 1942, production resuming in August 1945.

MLB attendance rose a little in 1945, and it rose significantly (the first really significant jump in attendance) in 1946.

Television usage in the United States skyrocketed after World War II with the lifting of the manufacturing freeze, war-related technological advances, the gradual expansion of the television networks westward, the drop in set prices caused by mass production, increased leisure time, and additional disposable income. While only 0.5% of U.S. households had a television set in 1946, 55.7% had one in 1954, and 90% by 1962. In Britain, there were 15,000 television households in 1947, 1.4 million in 1952, and 15.1 million by 1968.

I'm trying to find the page I originally had found outlining the numbers of new TV sets sold in the U.S. since it's invention and sales. I've had no luck so far.

[NotAboutEgo]

I'm sure that if you look at the numbers you'll see that the 1950's (baby boom) had a higher percentage of increase in population than following decades.

The baby boom started in the 1940's and lasted into the 1960's, specifically from 1946 to 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer


Statistics from the web page below show no significant increase in population in the 1950's compared to population growth in many years outside of the baby boom years, AND increases in population have actually tapered off a little in the most recent years up to 1999.

http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt

[NotAboutEgo]

This page shows pretty much the same thing...

http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm

[NotAboutEgo]

Yeah, but this a question of the chicken and the egg.

Actually, it is more a question of whether you have to actually see something to determine if it exists.

Many things have been marketed and failed. Some of those things were marketed poorly, or prematurely, and subsequently succeeded in the future, or under different marketing campaigns. Somethings have presumably been marketed well but did not catch on because they were crappy product, Gigli anybody....

At the same time, many poor quality products have been marketed successfully in the past.

Tastes change over time, and our preferences can be influenced by marketing. Markets for products can be created, they can be expanded, or narrowed. We've seen this over and over.

And how do you know which markets exist, and which do not? I assume you pioneered and made fortunes off of the Pet Rock, X-Games, belly button rings... If you truly have this clairvoyance, stop wasting your time here and go make billions investing in the volatile, yet potentially ultra-lucrative field of "emerging markets."

If markets just existed, and we knew what they were, market research wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry, and something called "emerging markets" wouldn't be the hottest investment class on Wall Street.

A lot of it also depends on the scope of the imagined leagues. I think it would be foolish to assume women's baseball could build a market the size of that for men's pro baseball, but could it support itself to the point of being self-sustaining?

AMEN again!!!!!

[metfan13]

Using the site you provided. Population increase percentages by decade:

20's - 15.6
30's - 7.3
40's - 15.3
50's - 18.7
60's - 13.5
70's - 10.8

Which is higher?

[metfan13]

Historical MLB attendance since 1901...
http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/mlbattendance.htm

TV timeline...
http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Television_Time.htm

http://www.history1700s.com/store/television.shtml — note that it says that in 1936, fewer than 200 TVs were sold worldwide. Also, note all the other things this web page says.

The first TV broadcast of MLB games was in 1939.

From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television

An estimated 19,000 electronic television sets were manufactured in Britain, and about 1,600 in Germany, before World War II. About 7,000-8,000 electronic sets were made in the U.S. before the War Production Board halted manufacture in April 1942, production resuming in August 1945.

MLB attendance rose a little in 1945, and it rose significantly (the first really significant jump in attendance) in 1946.

Television usage in the United States skyrocketed after World War II with the lifting of the manufacturing freeze, war-related technological advances, the gradual expansion of the television networks westward, the drop in set prices caused by mass production, increased leisure time, and additional disposable income. While only 0.5% of U.S. households had a television set in 1946, 55.7% had one in 1954, and 90% by 1962. In Britain, there were 15,000 television households in 1947, 1.4 million in 1952, and 15.1 million by 1968.

I'm trying to find the page I originally had found outlining the numbers of new TV sets sold in the U.S. since it's invention and sales. I've had no luck so far.


that first jump in attendance also went along with the first full season after WWII. But other than the depths of the depression I don't see average attendance of 5000 after 1918 (which was the end of WWI)

[metfan13]

that first jump in attendance also went along with the first full seaosn after WWII. But other than the depths of the depression I don't see average attendance of 5000 after 1918 (which was the end of WWI)

I think you're tying two different items related in a different way, new technology and the ability to attend games, both advancing due to post war affluence AND an increase in population.

[NotAboutEgo]

Using the site you provided. Population increase percentages by decade:

20's - 15.6
30's - 7.3
40's - 15.3
50's - 18.7
60's - 13.5
70's - 10.8

Which is higher?

You forgot one... 1900-1909... 17.3... not significantly lower than the 50's. The population increases in each year of the 50's aren't too different from increses in several other years before the 50's and after the 50's. Also, the baby boom was from 1946 to 1965, as I already stated, and MLB attendance took a significant jump for the first time in 1946... before the 1950's.

In addition, you previously stated that a rise in population is the reason for increased attendance at MLB games each year... when, in fact, these sites show steady drop offs in population increases from the late 1960's on. That contradicts your statement about the steady rise in MLB attendance in most recent years being due to population increases.

Why does MLB attendance continue to increase when the population increase has slowed compared to previous decades?

[NotAboutEgo]

I think you're tying two different items related in a different way, new technology and the ability to attend games, both advancing due to post war affluence AND an increase in population.

new technology in the way of the TV... allowing people to watch MLB games on TV... thereby, increasing the popularity of MLB.

What about before the war? Why was attendance lower then? Attendance rose at a steady pace, but not bay a large pace, until 1946 when it took a huge leap. Why didn't the same numbers attend games before the war?

Some of us have been stating that TV (along with other promotional tools) heavily influences the popularity of things. Obviously, other things will influence popularity. If you don't believe that TV is a major factor in promoting something and that it is a major factor in creating markets and niches, then you are completely blind. I guess the companies that spend thousands upon thousands and even millions of dollars a year on TV promotion should stop doing it, since it's so ineffective, and since not many people watch TV or pay attention to what's being broadcast.

[metfan13]

new technology in the way of the TV... allowing people to watch MLB games on TV... thereby, increasing the popularity of MLB.

What about before the war? Why was attendance lower then? Attendance rose at a steady pace, but not bay a large pace, until 1946 when it took a huge leap. Why didn't the same numbers attend games before the war?

Some of us have been stating that TV (along with other promotional tools) heavily influences the popularity of things. Obviously, other things will influence popularity. If you don't believe that TV is a major factor in promoting something and that it is a major factor in creating markets and niches, then you are completely blind. I guess the companies that spend thousands upon thousands and even millions of dollars a year on TV promotion should stop doing it, since it's so ineffective, and since not many people watch TV or pay attention to what's being broadcast.

Before the war was a little thing called the Great Depression. Might have contributed to lower attendance. There was greater affluence after the war leding to greater attendance.

You yourself say the baby boom started in 1946. Well it takes a little while for those folks to become paying ticketholders.

[metfan13]

In later years, despite overal flattening of the population increases, you did have major league expansion into areas where there previosuly weren't teams. You also had teams move out of two team cities to create more markeys for baseball, so while US population was growing as fast, baseball increased its population by broadening its fanbase.

[Charger567]

There is one difference between you comparing a WMLB and sports/games like poker and skateboarding. The type of poker games and skateboarding competitions televised are the top talents in the world. Fans of that particular activity will watch it. Baseball is all one sport. This is why I think a softball league is the only one that can be successful. Men are the top talent, and if women can't keep up, there will be no interest. You don't see a womens poker league because thats somewhere they can keep up with men. Men don't have many professional softball leagues, so that is left to women. I think that is the only place they can play professionally, where no men challenge them.

By the way, I will never experience child birth, but I can tell you that if a women endures it, it doesn't mean they have the durability to sustain a full season of baseball. All women can endure child birth; from 60 lb. twigs to a buff 150-200 lbs. I know it isn't easy, but if every woman in the world has the strength to endure it, how hard can it be? Does this mean that EVERY woman in the world is capable of enduring a full season? This has nothing to do with durability or toughness. Not saying women can't stand a season of athletics, because they do, but it has nothing to do with childbirth.

[NotAboutEgo]

In later years, despite overal flattening of the population increases, you did have major league expansion into areas where there previosuly weren't teams. You also had teams move out of two team cities to create more markeys for baseball, so while US population was growing as fast, baseball increased its population by broadening its fanbase.

And doing so in a big way by TV promotion, as one of the biggest influences in popularity. Would many people know much about the Little League World Series if it wasn't publicized so much on TV? Would Texas Hold 'Em have become so popular if it wasn't for it being promoted on TV? There are several other examples of this.

[metfan13]

And doing so in a big way by TV promotion, as one of the biggest influences in popularity. Would many people know much about the Little League World Series if it wasn't publicized so much on TV? Would Texas Hold 'Em have become so popular if it wasn't for it being promoted on TV? There are several other examples of this.


you do know that the LA Dodgers usually the top attendance team in the NL did not shwo more than a handful (20?) of games on TV. Not sure if they've increaed it with cable and satelitte, but through the 60's-70's-80's they manage to grow their fan base without broadcasting games.

[TG Coach]

Where are men's pro lacrosse, men's pro arena football, and men's pro soccer in the market in the U.S.? It seems that those men's pro sports are close to being obscure.

These sports are successsful niche products. There are franchises that fail but the leagues stand on their own.

[TG Coach]

What do you think about sports for the mentally and physically challenged? Do you think they are inferior to men's pro sports, and do you think they don't deserve to have similar/the same opportunities and promotion, since they aren't the same as men's pro sports?

They're not marketable on an ongoing basis. At best, they would be a one time curiosity for most viewers.

[TG Coach]

You don't see a womens poker league because thats somewhere they can keep up with men. Men don't have many professional softball leagues, so that is left to women. I think that is the only place they can play professionally, where no men challenge them.

Jennie Finch would be a mediocre softball player in competitive men's softball. Her fastball would be 20mph slower than the quality male pitchers.

[captlid]

Jennie Finch would be a mediocre softball player in competitive men's softball. Her fastball would be 20mph slower than the quality male pitchers.

They throw a larger ball underhanded 85mph? :faint:

Because I have never seen any submariner in the mlb throw over 80-82. Or is it due to the 46 ft in distance from the mound to home plate? Is that speed at release or crossing homeplate?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[NotAboutEgo]

They're not marketable on an ongoing basis. At best, they would be a one time curiosity for most viewers.

I wasn't asking about marketing. I asked what you think about those athletes/participants getting opportunities. Are your thoughts the same... they shouldn't have opportunities... like the Special Olympics and others... because they could be seen by some as being inferior to MLB? And what about the Senior Olympics?

[NotAboutEgo]

you do know that the LA Dodgers usually the top attendance team in the NL did not shwo more than a handful (20?) of games on TV. Not sure if they've increaed it with cable and satelitte, but through the 60's-70's-80's they manage to grow their fan base without broadcasting games.

Some teams/products/whatever can be successful without winning or without using TV a lot (like the Detroit Lions... who sell out every game but suck to oblivion... and who get a lot of TV attention in Michigan). But, no one can deny that TV is a HUGE marketing tool. I never said that some products couldn't be marketed successfully without it. What I and others have said is that it is a HUGE tool that increases the popularity of a product... creating a market for that product... otherwise, it wouldn't be so powerful in our culture.

You still haven't come up with an answer to my question about why companies would spend thousands and thousands and even millions of dollars a year for TV advertising if it wasn't such an effective marketing tool. Why do companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to advertise during prime sporting events and other events?

Again, it's not rocket science.

[metfan13]

Personally I think MLB does a crappy job marketing and pushing their product. Their archaic exclusion zones where they can't show games, even to those purchasing their cable package, their timing of nighttime playoff games so kids cant watch, and many adults can't stay up until the end, the numerous times they've shot themselves in the foot with cancelled World Series and strikes, it goes on and on.

[JeepingBaseball]

its not strictly MLB. It's the cable networks and the cost of greed. If you actually go to the city of any of MLB team, you will find it well advertised. Taxi cabs, buses, trains/subways, bars, dining restrooms, they are everywhere.

Advertising on tv is a whole new ballpark. MLB just doesnt justify a 6 million dollar payout for a 30 second spot for whoever the team is. And you cant advertise it on any other network but the network who agreed to broadcast 25% of their games. Such as Channel 11 in NY for the Mets. Not worth the money for a sub channel no one will see untill game time (the market the commericial is intended for) It's not on NBC, CBS, or ABC.

Fox, who have a separate agreement because it's with MLB themselves and not to any team alone, get to advertise who is going to appear on Fox. Fox doesnt have to pay 10's of millions of dollars for those spots, they are advertising themselves.

In actual reality, MLB is the king of marketing when it comes to the city and metro area of the team. And never hurts when you got fans walking around with the team logos on them... you're a walking advertisement. And that's free to them.

[JeepingBaseball]

Personally I think MLB does a crappy job marketing and pushing their product. Their archaic exclusion zones where they can't show games, even to those purchasing their cable package, their timing of nighttime playoff games so kids cant watch, and many adults can't stay up until the end, the numerous times they've shot themselves in the foot with cancelled World Series and strikes, it goes on and on.

MLB has to make a deal with the cable networks, who make war time dicators look sane. The Cable Networks, such as Time Warner or the ever dispised Cablevision, hold out for the money. They dont care who gets to watch it, who gets the prime time spot.. they couldnt care less. Thats someone elses department. The deal makers job is to suck 'em dry for as much as they can. They strike the deal, wait till game time, and then pull a stunt like "Only 99% sold... we quailfy for a blackout" and gone. Throw up the backup money programs and still get paid for the game.

if MLB had their way, the timing of the games would be a hell of a lot more consistant. Blame the networks.

[TG Coach]

Why would we wish to change your opinion? If you think that only men's pro sports are worth supporting monetarily cause they are the best, nothing we can do will change that.

Glad you like athletic women. Cause most guys I meet are scared around them. :( Or at least insecure.

If it scared me I'd have to get a gun. My wife was a three sport high school athlete. She was recruited for college softball but left college for another opportunity. My daughter was a three sport high school athlete and now a college softball player. When I was dating my wife she showed up at the court I was shooting baskets. She made eight of ten free throws in a dress, heels and long nails. And she wasn't a basketball player.

[NotAboutEgo]

its not strictly MLB. It's the cable networks and the cost of greed. If you actually go to the city of any of MLB team, you will find it well advertised. Taxi cabs, buses, trains/subways, bars, dining restrooms, they are everywhere.

Advertising on tv is a whole new ballpark. MLB just doesnt justify a 6 million dollar payout for a 30 second spot for whoever the team is. And you cant advertise it on any other network but the network who agreed to broadcast 25% of their games. Such as Channel 11 in NY for the Mets. Not worth the money for a sub channel no one will see untill game time (the market the commericial is intended for) It's not on NBC, CBS, or ABC.

Fox, who have a separate agreement because it's with MLB themselves and not to any team alone, get to advertise who is going to appear on Fox. Fox doesnt have to pay 10's of millions of dollars for those spots, they are advertising themselves.

In actual reality, MLB is the king of marketing when it comes to the city and metro area of the team. And never hurts when you got fans walking around with the team logos on them... you're a walking advertisement. And that's free to them.

I agree with metfan13 on the terrible way MLB braodcasts. It's not just up to the networks to decide when, how, and where MLB games get broadcast. MLB has complete control over its games. I used to buy the MLB TV subscription so I could see games while I was traveling, but I haven't done so lately because of how MLB controls broadcasts and rips fans off. I also bought the MLB package one summer and tried to cancel it when I found out I couldn't get games in my team's viewing area when they weren't on Fox Sports or the local channel, but I wasn't able to cancel the package. I had to pay for it the whole season, even though I didn't get to watch a single game. It's such a rip off.

But if MLB keeps ticking people off, the same thing will happen that's happening with the Detroit Red Wings. They've ticked enough people off that they can't fill the seats... and you never used to be able to tget a ticket to a game unless your company or a friend had seats.

[metfan13]

Here's where MLB kills themselves. I live in Charlotte, NC, but having grown up near NYC I'm a Mets fan. I buy the Extra Innings package on cable, but I can't watch any games against Cincinnati, Atlanta or Washington, because they're blacked out here. now of course I can get the Braves games on TBS and other cable channels so that's no big deal, but why not Washington? Are they afraid I may not drive 7 hours to DC on a Tuesday because it's on TV? If the Washington games were broadcast here on another outlet I could see this exclusiveness, but the current system is just stupid. I'm a paying customer, let me watch your product.

[NotAboutEgo]

Here's where MLB kills themselves. I live in Charlotte, NC, but having grown up near NYC I'm a Mets fan. I buy the Extra Innings package on cable, but I can't watch any games against Cincinnati, Atlanta or Washington, because they're blacked out here. now of course I can get the Braves games on TBS and other cable channels so that's no big deal, but why not Washington? Are they afraid I may not drive 7 hours to DC on a Tuesday because it's on TV? If the Washington games were broadcast here on another outlet I could see this exclusiveness, but the current system is just stupid. I'm a paying customer, let me watch your product.

Exactly. If we're paying extra to get the games that aren't broadcast on Fox Sports or whatever channel, we should be able to watch any game. It's complete crap. There are a lot of things wrong with MLB... like how it controls the ticket sales for All-Star games and how you can't buy tix for one game. Rather, they make you buy the whole package... even for FanFest and events you may not want to go to.

[SABR Steve]

Okay. I think I get what you are saying now. The strength exhibited by a woman having a baby is not a testament to a woman's strength as it relates to being able to perform in any sport per se, but is more evidence that the notion of long term muscular endurance is not a foreign concept to the female body.

In that respect, I think it still may be apples to oranges, but it makes a lot more sense from a logical standpoint.

Ask any girl today who is into sports and they will tell you they have stronger legs than boys. While the girls are signing up for soccer, the boys are playing video games.

[digglahhh]

Ask any girl today who is into sports and they will tell you they have stronger legs than boys. While the girls are signing up for soccer, the boys are playing video games.

Girls, what age are we talking about?

BTW, it is not that women's legs are stronger than men's, it is that women's legs are stronger in relation to their upper body than men's legs are in relation to theirs - I believe. I think this is a common misconception.

If we are talking about adolescent girls who have begun to physically mature and same age boys who develop later (on average) we are not talking a strict physiological difference resulting from gender, but a difference between genders at an isolated point in time as a result of different developmental patterns.

Plenty of young girls fritter their time away in front of the TV with a game controller in their hands too.

[digglahhh]

The type of poker games and skateboarding competitions televised are the top talents in the world.

False.

Texas Hold 'Em is the most popular form of televised poker. When was the last time a pro won the WSOP Hold 'Em tourney.?

The televised poker circuit is overpopulated with player who are far from top level - don't believe me, ask Phil Helmuth...

In fact the proliferation of amateurs has chased many of the pros away from Hold 'Em.

Additionally, you can put on any of the sports channels in the late nights and watch a bunch of dolts who can't even balance their own checkbook sitting down for a game of what might as well be lottery with the level of poker acumen displayed at the table...

That's not even to mention, "Celebrity Poker Challenge," that NY vs. Boston poker series on YES, some sort of rapper poker challenge that used to be on (or maybe still is) on Saturday nights. I know those are attempts at mixing markets, but suffice to say that televised poker rarely, at this point, represents the pinnacle of the game.

[metfan13]

Ask any girl today who is into sports and they will tell you they have stronger legs than boys. While the girls are signing up for soccer, the boys are playing video games.

Then why aren't girls kicking field goals all over the place?

[NotAboutEgo]

Then why aren't girls kicking field goals all over the place?

Number one... I doubt there are many youth football programs out there for girls (I have heard of some here and there but am not aware of many that exist), and number two, what age girls are you talking about?

Again, we can go back to what we've talked about for girls' and women's baseball programs (the lack of) and relate it to the lack of girls' football programs. There are some pro/semi-pro women's football teams and leagues, but what is there in terms of girls' youth football, girls' high school football, girls' collegiate football, etc?

So, how can girls kick field goals all over the place if there aren't programs out there for their development?

Just for the record, my response has nothing to do with women playing with men or comparing the two. It's simply stating that there is a huge lack of girls' and women's football programs just as there is a lack of girls' and women's baseball programs.

[NotAboutEgo]

I'm not stating that women have more lower body strength than men do, but I can certainly hold my own when playing coed roller hockey and coed soccer and when guys run into me and try to knock me down. Almost always, they end up falling down while I'm still standing. I've always had above average lower body strength (but not a lot of upper body strength or overall core strength), and I've learned to brace myself if I see someone coming at me, so I'm able to withstand most of the pushing and shoving (plus, I've been skating since I was about 5 and used to skateboard when I was that age).

I've been working on improving my core strength the past 2 months through several types of yoga, and it's working. I threw a baseball on Saturday for the first time in a month, and I threw it much harder than I ever have before. It's all because of the yoga, because I haven't lifted weights in about 8-9 months and haven't changed anything else. I will never go back to weight lifting after learning about yoga and seeing all that it can do for me.

[digglahhh]

Then why aren't girls kicking field goals all over the place?

What, you have never seen Kathy Ireland in Necessary Roughness? :happy: