To think people who say women's football & tennis isn't as skilled as men's because the men (or even untrained boys) would beat them are missing the point?

No-one is forced to watch it. There is an audience for it, both male and female. I only like the heavier weight boxing, as many men do, but no-one has been debating getting rid of the lower weight categories or the lower weights in weight lifting. It's quite incredible that women's football has been started in my granddaughter's lifetime. Many young women just about get their head around that us, near 60 year old women were subject to legal rape within our marriage. WF has been fantastic for the old Everton ground, it was about to become a housing estate in a over crowded, run down area, it's been brought back to life and the surrounding business are grateful for it. Women are entitled to play football. It doesn't have to compete with the men's game.

They're not being asked to do more than their male counterparts.

I can't say I recognise this argument against women playing 5 sets. The rate of injury in the men's game seems to be higher than the rate of injury in the women's game (illness the opposite). I'm not aware of any research that suggests the rate of injury is higher in 5-setters than in 3-setters and even if it were, the argument would be that these are the flagship events where the players are pushing themselves more.

In any case, this would just be the top players - those that reach round 4 or the quarter-finals of grand slams, and only a maximum of 4 times a year. The women are already elite athletes, training just as much as the men, all year round, so I can't see how the addition of a maximum 12 or 16 five set matches for the top top players in one year is going to increase the injury rate.
And it would get all those 'women should play 5 set' stuck record merchants, off their backs.

Women being able to beat men at sport is not the right measure of women’s skills and talents in sport. Football and tennis are sports that involve elements of brute strength and speed and men will always have the advantage over women by those measures. But that is not the only way of measuring quality in sport.

My DH generally finds women’s tennis more interesting to watch because brute strength and speed are less important than skill and technique in the women’s game. And as i said above, he thinks women’s football is a greater showcase for skill than men’s football, at least English men’s football.

Female footballers and ACL injuries.

They are starting research projects on it. There has also been talk about the boots being designed foe male bodies

Why should female tennis players put themselves through the physical stress of 5 sets though?

Of course 5 sets is achievable. However, the physical impact on a female tennis player’s body of returning even fast female serves and stretching on a court made for the male proportions would be exposing female players to greater injury and more exhausting than what the male players experience.

There is little doubt that female bodies are more prone to injury, it has been well documented. Particularly during certain times of the menstrual cycle. So, why should female players do this and potentially shorten their careers for some out dated thinking of them having to match the men?

Female people are not mini male people. This notion that they should have to do more than their male counterparts to be viewed as ‘equal’ is harmful when it puts them at increased risk of injury than their male counterparts face.

Apologies, but this is nonsense. If the 2022 Lionesses were capable of 'wiping the floor' with the 2022 men's side they'd all being playing in the Premier League, not the WSL and it's overseas equivalents.

Yeah, but there was also research that said 10% of men thought they could beat a grizzly bear.

That sort of poll just confirms at least 10% of blokes are dumb

It's prize money, not an hourly rate. The achievement of winning Wimbledon or the French open is the same for women as it is for men, therefore prize money is the same.

Besides which, the real reason why it's best of 3 at GS is down to scheduling, not anything else. The women would and could quite happily play best of 5.

Women’s tennis is great but insisting they have equal prize money for 3 sets, not 5 is utterly absurd and devalues all arguments on quality imo

I think there's a lot of bias in the debate - particularly things like the USA women's team - why are they asked about losing to the U15s when training match losses with "embarrassing" teams are common for elite mens football too. If they lost because they were women, why did Man U lose to Wrexham reserves? Why did the USA women's team beat other under 15s?

I remember there being research that showed something around 10% of men thought they could score a point against Serena Williams- when she was still at her peak with a serve speed over 100 miles per hour.

Not RTFT but yes, they’re missing the point. My DH is a lifelong men’s football fan but has got increasingly interested in the women’s game in the last decade or so. He considers the female game to be overall a better showcase of skill than the men’s because players are much less reliant on brute strength. He thinks the same about women’s tennis.

Some difference? Or no difference?

Currently a male snooker or pool player, Haynes, has been legally challenging the English organisation's decision to exclude him. He has previously won female competitions. Look up Lynne Pinches to see what she has to say and how she has been treated.

There are male players in the european competitions and winning championships there too.

There is definitely a male advantage. Dr Emma Hilton gave evidence, I believe, to the first Haynes court case. He is now appealing that decision.

Sir Geoff Hurst was asked how he thought the England team of '66 would have fared against the Lionesses.

"I think we'd have won 1-0" he replied.

"Only 1-0?" questioned the reporter.

"Yes," said Geoff. "There's only me left now and I'm 83."

That's the article I was thinking about - thanks for finding it

I enjoy watching women’s rugby. It is a different game though as women’s upper body strength is not comparable to men’s.

Re male rugby players being too muscle bound for agility, pint sized scrum halves still appear to be a thing!

Women’s Rugby is arguably better to watch than men’s Rugby, because the women’s flexibility makes scrums more successful (around half the scrums in the M6N collapsed), and there’s more passing, running and tactical play in the women’s game.
DH is converted to watching women’s rugby since COVID restrictions moved the W6N to after the M6N so it could be separately televised.
In Rugby, the men have become so bulky and muscle bound that a lot of their agility has been sacrificed, the women’s game is much more like the men’s used to be, and much less aggressive.

And that is with VAR.

The WSL doesn't use VAR

Pool and snooker- male people have advantage due to larger hands, and due to skeletal proportions have greater leverage, and with greater muscle mass and greater strength, including twitch muscles and grip strength, more power to hit balls at speed and with greater control. Plus they have a height advantage and greater stability due to hip alignment.

Darts and curling - similar to the above.

@gannett Watching Tatjana dismantle three of the best tennis players on the tour - all heavy hitters - was a delight!

Re. ultra endurance - the women are actually winning some of these events on a level playing field against the men. Women hold some of the records
https://www.livefortheoutdoors.com/trail-running/news/ultra-women-endurance-sports/

Really - they're 90% not shorter. It's only the grand slams (4) which are best of 5 for the men. The rest of the tour is best of 3 - so the year end finals, the Masters events, the 500s, the 250s and everything else below.

My husband watches women's football - he has a season ticket for one of the premier league clubs. He used to watch the men's team but got fed up with the prima Donna attitudes, the constant sacking of managers, the dodgy finances...

Anyway, he says it's nowhere near the skill level of the men's game but he finds it more interesting and still competitive.

My brother prefers to watch women's golf. He finds it more realistic - he finds the men's tournaments boring.

It isn't for everyone but it is still intrinsically competitive, just as the Para Olympics or under 18s are competitive, even though men's events may be higher quality.

If the heavy weight could land a blow they would probably knock the light weight out cold. But the light weight would almost certainly be nimbler and faster so better at dodging the blows.

Even then grater reach, bigger hand etc give subtle male advantage. That's before we get to the social differences and attitudes to boys/men playing sport vs girls/women.

It is apple v oranges. I enjoy a wide variety of sports and understand that usually the men's and women's versions are separated entities. Faster, harder, stronger doesn't necessarily mean 'better'. A male footballer can out jump a female one, he can get to the ball faster, kick it harder/further, beat her in 50/50 challenges but that doesn't make him a 'better' player, it makes him a bigger, stronger faster player.