It's in fact so unpopular that you can get papers claiming the opposite published despite very simple math errors in them, like this one: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1659/1161
while arguing for opposite gets you shunned even if all you need to prove your point is high school level math and a rating list with attendance rates.
In MMA it's not even interesting as men are way stronger, have better hand-eye coordination and way less body fat. I doubt she would have a chance again a local amateur small town champion let alone anyone competitive.
Humans are cultural creatures, cultural thinkers and movers, and in everything from chess to MMA we benefit greatly from growing up in a culture that is tooled to support our specific strengths. Not everyone gets that chance, and not all groups equally.
Well, we don't but attendance rate are already taken into account. There might be other cultural problems though like being in a minority being difficult or more likely girls just doing worse in competitive social environments which are typical for sports.
One can even argue that girls already have advantage in selection: assuming equal talent distribution in boys and girls populations and assuming most talented children from both make it to the competitive chess, the girls should do better (because less of them are selected and therefore more talented ones on average).
If anything it's likely that once selected (that is starting to play competitively) the environment is less welcoming to girls. On the other hand girls get more opportunities than boys (dues to women only tournaments, titles, world championship).
While I think the hypothesis that environment is less welcoming and thus inhibit development of women players I have trouble seeing how this can be tested.
Aptitude testing shows[1] that while females tend to cluster more towards the average, male populations produce more outliers. There are both more male geniuses and male imbeciles than their female counterparts.
[1] for example http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-scottish-iq-...
This is the product of the different evolutionary strategy for males and females, the males being high risk/high reward, the females being conservative/average. I don't have a citation for that.
It's definitely less disadvantage in chess than it is in MMA but it seems the effect is still there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)
Man ranked 203 beats both Williams sisters in informal sets:
First of all, that's false.
Gender stereotypes and attitudes being what they are, he can either look bad for beating up a girl or look bad for getting beat up by a girl. There is no good outcome.
Pound for pound, top male fighters are going to be between 50% and 100% stronger than Ronda.
Why? I thought the whole reason men tend to be stronger is that we're generally physically larger. As in more pounds of muscle to be strong with.
I can't believe this is even an issue of debate or misunderstanding on HN.
Go to any gym and watch a 5'6", 165 pound guy bench press, and then watch a woman at the same size with the same experience do so. Men can also jump higher and run faster than women at exactly the same physical measurements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
"Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass."
http://www.quora.com/Are-men-generally-physically-stronger-t...
This is indisputable.
However, strength only in one factor, and there are many that contribute to the success in an MMA fight.
There are also key differences in how you measure strength and how that matters in a fight.
Daniel Cormier has significantly higher stats around olympic lifts, and routinely manhandles his opponents. Against former champion Jon Jones, however, Jones matched him, and was able to out wrestle the former olympian.
Saying it more plainly, just because men are naturally stronger than women, doesn't mean that men are naturally better fighters.
No, a 180 pound man would absolutely destroy a 180 woman. It's just the way it is. To a large extent it's because the only weight in your body that's doing 'work' are your muscles, and women biologically have higher body fat percentages than men, including in top trained athletes in weight-division based sports. That difference can be quite substantial depending on the sport and the level. For normal people the average difference is about 11% (and you wouldn't see it, either, a man at 12% bodyfat looks very similar to a woman at say 18 or 20%) Meaning for a say a 180 pound individual at a 10% differential in bodyfat percentage, we're looking at a difference of 18 pounds of muscle. That's multiple weight divisions, a huge difference in division based sports like most martial arts. In other words you can have more muscle while being the same weight. A lot of this has to do with different steroid hormonal levels, like testosterone, and genetics, which dictate the ability and propensity to build muscle and store fat, which differ quite significantly between sexes.
Beyond that there are differences in hand-eye coordination between men and women, which I don't know exist for top athletes (although looking at women in sports like football or boxing that I know pretty well, it's often considerably worse with all due respect, so I'd assume technically there is a difference, too in general, although there are exceptions), and then there's aerobic fitness related things where men have better oxygen uptake, bodyweight adjusted, too, more hemoglobin mass etc.
But yeah outside of sports, a lot of it is weight based. You simply won't find guys the size of Valuev or Anthony Joshua in the opposite gender.
Anyway the whole 'beat a man' thing with Ronda is just marketing. The fact we're talking about this is exactly what it gets her: a ton of exposure even on platforms totally non-fighting related. Everyone within their own sport knows how big the gap is. She's sparred with tons of guys and has experienced getting toyed with. And that is true for many other sports. Some women have tried in various sports, tennis being the most common one, where you ended up with the nr 1 woman in the world not being able to win a single set against her brother who plays for recreation at college level. In fighting we've had Dutch pride Lucia Rijker, one of the greatest female fighters of all time, undefeated, actually trains Ronda in her striking, and she got knocked out unconscious by a complete and utter nobody easily and quickly, she never tried again.
What do you think if we train men and women from the moment they born together ? Is there any scientific evidence that can prove women are absolutely weaker in terms of physical strength ?
I mean by looking at the information you provided like differences in body fat percentage , I am not convinced this is absolute differences.I don't know how to put it , let me say it , what is the reason to such huge gap for example in body fat differences percentage ?
What if we didn't have separate championship league for every sport between men and women ? I think some kind of "law of survival" would help women's to increase their power in long term.
p.s. by the way I am just CS student and I don't have any information about these kind of topic . but I think centuries of suppressing woman make them weaker in some area's , which I think would be fixed by just society which do not differentiate between men and women.
That most of her wins are obvious, and still unpreventable is what makes her scary, and there are indeed plenty of guys she could beat in the octagon.
On the whole, I definitely agree that many of those guys are probably paying her lip service, and that the level of challenge goes up incredibly when facing guys, especially those above Featherweight, but to be fair to her, I actually like her chances against much of the field in fly and bantamweights, minus those at the very top, perhaps.
There are NO guys (professional MMA fighers) that she could beat in the Octagon. Respectfully, this is a fantasy.
> men have a biological advantage
I'm curious what biological advantage going through puberty as a male imparts that going through HRT doesn't take away.
http://fightmedicine.net/uncategorized/a-medical-and-scienti...
>The effects of hormonal therapy over time, in this case testosterone deprivation and estrogen supplementation, are not completely understood. However, what is clear is that transgender individuals that underwent surgery after puberty will retain some male features, such as increased height. Male–>Female transgender patients tend to retain more muscle mass than female–>male transgender patients gain, suggesting that some gender-specific attributes remain. Whether effects such as height will prove beneficial in MMA like they do in other sports such as basketball remains to be seen. Another question is if the fighter is completely transgendered. Taking estrogens without castration will leak out testosterone that can maintain muscle mass. Furthermore, how much estrogen is being taken? If it’s not enough, then muscle strength can be closer to male levels
But this is something that can be measured and has less to do with the fact that the HRT happened after puberty.
In the male league, do some fighters get to refuse to fight others based on bone density differences? I'm thinking not, which is why this restriction seems artificial, sort of like grasping for straws to find a difference (though I'm open to being proven wrong).
That does not discount that there are men currently competing in MMA that Rousey has a realistic and good shot at actually beating.
The average man has weight and musculature advantages over Ronda in the same way that Ken Shamrock, Grizzly Pardoel and Patrick Smith have weight and musculature advantages over Royce Gracie. Despite that, Royce has beaten them all.
Matt Hughes was one of the best in the world, and much more in his prime than Gracie for that fight, and also a student of BJJ.
Yes, men have a distinct and pronounced advantage against any woman, but I flatly reject the notion that any amateur MMA practitioner could best her in the ring, especially given the breadth of talent in MMA. Watch any UFC prelim, and I guarantee that you'd find at least a couple of guys who you'd certainly bet money to lose against Ronda. Beyond that, there are top guys that don't have a good defense against BJJ, and they're often matched up against like competitors for showmanship, and if you think there's no way she could sink an armbar on any of them, I just flat out think you're wrong.
If they would be boxing — Ronda would stay no chance.
But then it's quite natural, you know. In the chess match between Kasparov and Mayweather, Kasparov would win as well. I guess.
So, again, this argument is worth nothing and whole point is simply about marketing. As well as that "women are not supposed to be able to do" thing. I'm quite sure there are plenty of women which would take me in a fistfight, because, well, they train for that way more than I do. But if you are comparing men against women in the same sport… well, it's already discussed.
Actually, I just think its plain sexist.
As has been mentioned all over this thread, sexual dimorphism is a real thing, and not just something men made up to repress the lowly women.
A strong, fierce, dominant fighter can absolutely be female. A strong, fierce, dominant fighter that is female and that could beat someone larger is exceedingly unlikely, and has absolutely nothing to do with sexism whatsoever.
There are various other videos of her rolling with other men (albeit bigger ones) like Mousasi and Luke Rockhold, and it is anything but competitive.
I think the situation is pretty comparable to Serena Williams, who would win against most "regular" men, but not be able to provide a competitive match against roger federer.
Well what is regular? A regular professional would completely dominate her. Here's an anecdote of the only time she tried against a man.
> During the 1998 Australian Open, sisters Serena and Venus Williams boasted that they could beat any man ranked outside the world's top 200. The challenge was accepted by Karsten Braasch, a German player ranked No 203 (his highest ranking was No 38). Before the matches, Braasch played a round of golf in the morning, drank a couple of beers, smoked a few cigarettes, and then played the Williams sisters for a set each, one after the other. He defeated Serena, 6-1, and Venus, 6-2. Serena said afterwards "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."
We're talking about two women here who ended up nr 1 players in the world (in fact Serena is the nr 1 right now, today), and were already top 10 players at that time.
Of course if you mean by 'regular' to be just anyone, like me... then sure, but if you pick the average person from the street they'd lose to a 12 year old talent, let alone someone like Williams.
As for Ronda, it's pretty well known men hold back when they spar her in all these videos for sure. She could absolutely trash us, but a professional male fighter wouldn't have a hard time at all, and he doesn't have to be world class. It's just the way it is and there's no shame in that. Just like there's no shame in a 10 year old losing to an adult, or a fully able-bodied beating a physically handicapped person, or a 15 year old beating the old and frail Mohammed Ali he is today, so what, there's a grand biological/physical difference there that has no basis in merit or talent or will and that is unsurmountable, nothing to be proud over for the winner and nothing to be ashamed over for the loser.
She won't face Cyborg due to a difference of ten pounds. That tells you everything you need to know. A top-ranked male fighter in her weight class is going to have an even greater physical advantage than what those 10 pounds give Cyborg.
The Cyborg thing: Ronda is the champion, Cyborg should come down to her weight, not the other way around.
She does not routinely win against top male fighters.
And if you watch the YouTube videos of what you're talking about, her training sessions against men, they are not going full-steam against her, and they almost always have very sizable weight advantages - which is rule #1 of what you never do in fighting (and why Ronda hasn't yet fought Cyborg). In the case of Ronda vs Cyborg, you're talking a few pounds of difference, and she refuses to fight due to that gap - so you're trying to tell me she's having no problem against guys 30 and 40 pounds heavier in training (fails the logic test right off).
Pound for pound she does not win regardless.
A catchweight fight could be reasonably expected in this situation, but coming down an entire division is very, very uncommon. The weird thing is that MMA doesn't seem to have a division in between theirs. For example in boxing you have lightweight which is 135, then you have super lightweight at 140, and then welterweight at 147. But Ronda fights at 135, and Cyborg fights at 145, there's no 140 in between. A catchweight fight at 140 makes a lot of sense, I think, coming down 10 pounds is crazy. Going up 10 pounds is also a lot, although we mustn't forget Ronda competed in the olympics (a much tougher competition in the sport she dedicated a much bigger part of her life to) at 154 pounds, so this notion 145 is suddenly too much, and that Cyborg just has to come down to 135 is pretty silly but whatever. It's not uncommon to compete at a lower weight than the olympics, but 20 pounds is a gigantic difference and it says she could easily go 10 pounds back up. And for a catchweight bout it'd only have to be 5. If that doesn't happen I think it's clear who doesn't want to take the fight. (Ronda)
Beyond that I don't know if Cyborg's on steroids, I don't follow her much and I wouldn't be surprised if she was, but I don't see her weight as being remotely related. Again, it's extremely untypical to go down in weight classes, if that was supposedly indicative of steroids I can literally name a hundred fighters who'd be suspicious from the top of my head.
Anyway yeah she said it a couple times that she could do 135, yet it hasn't happened because she wants the fight at 140 at a catchweight I suggested (I'm just reading this now). I mean Cyborg just a few years ago won gold medals at at 74kg or 163 pounds. Now she has to drop down to 135 pounds from there, or 10 pounds from her 145 fights this year? Instead of Ronda agreeing to go up 5 pounds to 140, when Ronda competed just fine in tougher competitions at 154 before? So supposedly she's got the self confidence to fight anyone, to beat men, to even beat elite female boxers like Laila Ali IN BOXING, when Laila competed up to 175 (I mean it's just a total joke), yet Ronda doesn't want to go up 5 pounds for Cyborg to go down 5 pounds and make the fight happen?
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/8/2/9086623/ronda-rousey-challe...
If shes smart and wants a massive payday she will cut to 135 for the Rousey fight.
A strong male athlete can bench press 150%-175%+ his body weight. You think Rousey can do 6 x 240 pounds? Not a chance.
Very commonly referenced strength standards in lifting communities for most people between absolute novice and absolute world class.
Of course, world records might not be the best thing to look at, since the variance among the genders is probably different (although this discussion is about top MMA fighters, so it's fairly appropriate). Also, you can probably find very different numbers by looking at different weight classes and events.
As an example, I'm 175# and can bench press 285# (3 whites) but I'm not a "strong male athlete" by any means.
Athletes who train for strength (linemen, powerlifters like GZCL) are putting up 2x their body weight or more, and that's just for bench press alone which is usually the lightest event.
Deadlifts and squats can hit 4x body weight which is just insane.
It's not a bias, it's extremely well understood human physiology. Men and women are in fact very different in the strength department, men are vastly stronger.
This is not about the aggregate, it's about the specific.
I would put Rhonda's ground game up against plenty of bantamweight men. Striking is a different story, of course, but god help any fighter that hesitates and lets her attach on to anything. Watch her spar with Uriah Hall, and how easily she takes down an extremely athletic man with a 50 pound advantage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yYZfeDm_Ig
I don't think this fight would ever happen, but dismissing Rhonda Rouseys potential with biological hand-waving is an insult to everything she's accomplished. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even particularly like her.
It's not an insult, it's just biology.
That said, the comparison is made, simply because there aren't any Women to compare Rousey too. In our need to classify how good Ronda Rousey is, we want to now compare her globally.
Ronda has said herself she does not want to fight men. I concur with her, it's bad for the sport, and she has nothing to gain from it.
There's been plenty of discussion about this on Sherdog and /r/mma... and even some historical precedent. I recall seeing a video awhile back of a then female undefeated kickboxing champion vs a journeyman fighter and while the female fighter showed more speed and skill, the physical advantage made the fight extremely lopsided.
It's disappointing that we'll probably never see Ronda realize her full potential because she doesn't face enough competitive pressure.
It won't be decisive. It would amount to an assassination. I'll let you figure out who would kill who.
First of all, that's false. Top male fighters, in an actual match, would injure her. It would not be entertaining, it would be almost disgustingly brutal. One need look no further than what Cristiane Justino - using performance enhancing drugs - did to her opponents, to understand. Pound for pound, top male fighters are going to be between 50% and 100% stronger than Ronda.
I'm curious when this fantasy is going to stop being promoted? It seems to commonly be in every thread about her, across every site.
Even more interesting, is to analyze the origins of it, why it exists, and why people feel the need to keep it going. I can't decide if it's mostly fetish (a male fantasy of being dominated physically), or something else entirely.