(March 1, 2018 at 11:33 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I was in cross country, yes, and in track I did mid distance. So, the 400 and 800. But that was back in the day when I was in school. I don't do comparative running anymore, just run for exercise now a days.

You?

(March 1, 2018 at 1:33 pm)shadow Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 11:33 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I was in cross country, yes, and in track I did mid distance. So, the 400 and 800. But that was back in the day when I was in school. I don't do comparative running anymore, just run for exercise now a days.

You?

I've done almost everything . I've always been into sprints and horizontal jumps, but in high school I moved up to the 400m and then tried and loved hurdles, so 400 metre Hurdles is my main event now. Also I focused on the heptathlon for a few years, but it's a bit much to try to train for 7 events at the university level. I've done a lot of cross country too (despite hating it with a passion, I don't know why, but I couldn't bring myself to quit until uni), and last year I was into half-marathon kind of distances. But overall hurdle events are my favorite.

(March 1, 2018 at 1:20 pm)SaStrike Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 1:03 pm)Shell B Wrote: Yes, I am using it correctly. Since when is a gender only considered athletic dependent upon how many sports there are for that gender in the Olympics? Is that easier to understand?

You can't measure the overall athleticism of a gender on sports. Athleticism is a set of characteristics that a person can have even if they've never played a sport in their lives.

Not what I originally posted, I posted that both genders in the same events of the Olympics have different levels (male being much higher level) for example quicker sprinting times and higher jumping lengths. Not that there are more male than female events. Now if the levels of athletic ability are different in the exact same Olympic events, it means males are more athletic than females.

(March 1, 2018 at 1:38 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I've come to the conclusion that I don't have enough information to make an informed decision on this issue.

I think sometimes that is the wisest stance

(March 1, 2018 at 1:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Hehehe, I get ya Shell....i think.  We're all born with the potential for athleticism because it's innate to our species regardless of gender.  Any comments regarding the "relative athleticism" of gender are and can only be limited to the small subset that competes in some specific game with specific conditions and necessarrily excludes anyone ho doesn;t compete or any other metrics of determing athleticism either in general or in relation to gender disparity (real or imagined). 

It would be like saying..because bobby fisher was good and most of the pro chess circuit is male..."males are better at chess".  That's ludicrous, the data set, even accepted without qualm on it;s own grounds, is insufficient to make such a binding general declaration.

(March 1, 2018 at 1:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Hehehe, I get ya Shell....i think.  We're all born with the potential for athleticism because it's innate to our species regardless of gender.  Any comments regarding the "relative athleticism" of gender are and can only be limited to the small subset that competes in some specific game with specific conditions and necessarrily excludes anyone ho doesn;t compete or any other metrics of determing athleticism either in general or in relation to gender disparity (real or imagined). 

It would be like saying..because bobby fisher was good and most of the pro chess circuit is male..."males are better at chess".  That's ludicrous, the data set, even accepted without qualm on it;s own grounds, is insufficient to make such a binding general declaration.

(March 1, 2018 at 1:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Hehehe, I get ya Shell....i think.  We're all born with the potential for athleticism because it's innate to our species regardless of gender.  Any comments regarding the "relative athleticism" of gender are and can only be limited to the small subset that competes in some specific game with specific conditions and necessarrily excludes anyone ho doesn;t compete or any other metrics of determing athleticism either in general or in relation to gender disparity (real or imagined). 

It would be like saying..because bobby fisher was good and most of the pro chess circuit is male..."males are better at chess". That's ludicrous, the data set, even accepted without qualm on it;s own grounds, is insufficient to make such a binding general declaration.