Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
Zlatan with some real talk about women's footy
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Here's an interesting old thread from a different forum:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34/other-other-topics/propbet-footrace-older-dude-vs-2-young-chicks-pics-vid-inc-318658/So at work the other day one of the young chicks (chick #1) at my office suggested that she could run faster than my office manager, 2+2er Mcpherzen. One of the other young chicks (chick #2) at my office agreed and felt that she could also run faster than Mcpherzen.
Since I am under the general impression that girls run slower than dudes, I laughed at them and suggested we bet on it. I offered 3:1 odds and they both accepted. During a conversation with Usher's special ladyfriend last night, she agreed that chick #2, whom she knows well, would be able to run faster than Mcpherzen, whom she also knows. So I booked action with her too.
The bet: A 50 yard footrace on grass.
The contestants:
Mcpherzen: My office manager and longtime friend. He is 38 years old and does not exercise. He cannot remember the last time he ran at full speed, and it has definitely been more than 5 years. When he was younger he was fast and athletic.
Here is a picture of Mcpherzen with me and Suzzer. He is on the left:
Chick #1 A 23 year-old who works at my office. She is strong and athletic and works out regularly. She has never ran competitively.
Her only experience with prop betting is that she fails at eating 100 oreos in 2 hours:
Chick #2 A 28 year-old who works at my office. We served together in the Army and she is very fit. She works out regulary also. She has never ran competitively but always finished at the front in any Army drill that involved running.
Here is a picture of Chick #2 making out with my special ladyfriend:
This seems like a lock to me. I"ll post a video of the race as soon as I can. Let's hear how OOT would handicap it.
Irieguyseems like a fit girl should beat older unfit guy most of the time, and definitely more than 25% of the time to make your bets horrible.
i like where you work. can you hire me? need an accountant or guy good with numbers?Conventional wisdom tells us that you're a lock. But your buddy looks like he has a gut to him, and some chicks are straight up fast. I have a feeling you're about to get owned for whatever amount you bet.this is what i think as well. some girls are ridiculous athletes as well, and it seems like these girls are working out and doing some running, while the guy is getting old and fat.
i wouldn't be surprised with either outcome, but i definitely wouldn't offer 3:1.Yeah, this isn't basketball or something, running is pretty much straight fitness level.lastchance wrote: »I have to echo the sentiments of everybody else here. This feels like a bad propbet to me.you losei think giving 3:1 is a horrendous betThat Foreign Guy wrote: »$100 on each girl please. I'll even take 2:1 on girl 2.
In case it's not clear, I think you set terrible odds here. Does he have mad reaction time or something? Also make sure he warms up well or he will pull something.
Maybe skinny random bar skank vs chubby old guy is 3:1 in his favour but these girls actually work out and you say one of them is good at running?equalsfive wrote: »At any distance over 50m you instantly lose your bet. With the short distance I'd say you only have 30-40% of winning. In other words, a bad bet.Army chick fell and she's not the type to make excuses. She was a good sport.
After she brushed herself off I had her race chick #1. Even though she's a good 3" shorter she beat chick #1 pretty handily.
We also talked quite a bit about how far the race would have to be before Zen lost and we decided it was somewhere between 2 miles and infinity, and probably a lot closer to inifinity.
This bet was a bit rigged, I guess, considering I have a degree in sports medicine. We spent a good week in kinesiology discussing this subject. Girls are shorter, have smaller lower extremity muscle mass, and their wider hips create an angle at the knee joint (the Q angle) which makes any activity that involves lower extremity power very rigged against them. Most people think "oh the world-record women's sprinter is 85% as fast as a dude, so chicks in good shape are kind of fast." This has everything to do with the freakishness of world-class female athletes (tall, massive muscle mass, narrow hips with no Q angle) and little to do with the gap in lower extremity power between women and men.
It's very difficult to be able to carry a full term human gestation in your pelvis, deliver the infant between the bones of your pelvis, AND be able to sprint and jump well. This thread illustrates how successful the women's rights movement has been in conditioning people to ignore the fact that women are physically capable of having children... at the expense of other less important feats of strength.
Irieguy
The point being that feminism has successfully distorted the way we compare females and males in terms of athleticism. There is an unrecoverable gap between the genders on topics like this but it's a problem in modern society to simply say as much.
In terms of women's football:
- the playing pool as a whole is much smaller;
- the rewards for playing at an elite level are not lucrative in the relative sense;
- this means the elite playing pool is tiny in comparison to the men's game;
- as a consequence it is correct (and should be uncontroversial) to suggest that ~200 caps in women's football is less of an absolute achievement than ~100 caps in men's football;
However it's still worth clarifying a few points here. In terms of the example posted of AIK U17's beating the Swedish National Team in a friendly, let me be very clear in noting to you all that AIK U17's would piss on your Sunday League team too, and beat you a lot worse than they did the Swedish Women's team. Cherry Orchard U17's would hammer the Irish Senior Women's team sure - but they'd beat most non professional men's sides handily while they're at it.
But such comparisons are stupid. They're different sports and it's still a fine achievement to become an elite level international women's footballer. Takes plenty of skill, hard work and genetics to do that - that shouldn't be questioned.0 -
-
Chancer3001 wrote: »Post more pics of girl 2.
Seriously, good test.
I would have backed the guy every time.
Again, just to be super clear let me say that the below post is completely incorrect:Chancer3001 wrote: »I got warned last time i said that me and my buddies would beat the best women's soccer team.
I'm not trolling and maybe I'm miles off. But that's what I believe.
I've watched a decent bit of women's soccer and the general standard is terrible.
The American team does have a class keeper though!
The US Women's team would destroy you. You'd have to approach elite amateur level men's teams before they start losing games (either in terms of elite youth teams with future professionals or LSL sides with exceptional athletes). The best women's teams have 'freakish world class female athletes' as discussed in my post above with brilliant technique and tactical drilling to a professional standard. You and your mates would spend time chasing shadows. And some of your mates, men or not, would be 'manhandled' by the likes of:
and
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
LuckyLloyd wrote: »Again, just to be super clear let me say that the below post is completely incorrect:
The US Women's team would destroy you. You'd have to approach elite amateur level men's teams before they start losing games (either in terms of elite youth teams with future professionals or LSL sides with exceptional athletes). The best women's teams have 'freakish world class female athletes' as discussed in my post above with brilliant technique and tactical drilling to a professional standard. You and your mates would spend time chasing shadows. And some of your mates, men or not, would be 'manhandled' by the likes of:
and
The US Womens team has been beaten handily by U15 boys teams - club teams not national ones.
http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/uswnt-vs-so-cal-boys-odp.929075/0 -
-
-
-
Chancer3001 wrote: »Were just going to have to agree to disagree.
That keeper is tiny for a keeper. She'd be smaller than the smallest guy on my team. And she's in goals....
I'm 110% sure we'd win easily. Wouldn't even be a contest.
What has height got to do with the price of milk? It's a small factor to the point of almost being irrelevant, unless all you plan to do is hoof the ball up to the big man for 90 minutes.
Hope Solo is 5ft 9ins and height isn't everything for a keeper. She has better reflexes and jumping ability than a 6ft 5ins Sunday league keeper who can't move his feet without nearly falling over.
Good read here on the subject of goalkeepers' height being overstated -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2530650/The-Footballers-Football-Column-Richard-Lee-Peter-Schmeichel-played-decline-English-goalkeeping.htmlChancer3001 wrote: »Yeah but they're little 14 year old kids!! And they still beat the women.
It wouldn't be a contest!
I'm flogging a dead horse here. I'm surprised that people think they would stand a chance.
The 14 year old kids would also beat your team because they would be much better footballers technically, no other reason.
You're right, you're flogging a dead horse as your Sunday league team are probably not as good as you seem to think.
Edit: Any chance you can post the league your team is in? It'd make the debate a bit easier
0 -
-
-
What has height got to do with the price of milk? It's a small factor to the point of almost being irrelevant, unless all you plan to do is hoof the ball up to the big man for 90 minutes.
Hope Solo is 5ft 9ins and height isn't everything for a keeper. She has better reflexes and jumping ability than a 6ft 5ins Sunday league keeper who can't move his feet without nearly falling over.
Good read here on the subject of goalkeepers' height being overstated -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2530650/The-Footballers-Football-Column-Richard-Lee-Peter-Schmeichel-played-decline-English-goalkeeping.html
The 14 year old kids would also beat your team because they would be much better footballers technically, no other reason.
You're right, you're flogging a dead horse as your Sunday league team are probably not as good as you seem to think.
Edit: Any chance you can post the league your team is in? It'd make the debate a bit easier
Xavi you're missing the original point here: Nobody suggests that we give the 14 year-olds a prize for their achievements just like their grown male counterparts, so why should the female players get such prizes?0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement