Printable View
That's why there was a lot of opposition a few years ago to letting a woman compete in men's golf tournaments, and a lot of it came from the LPGA, because there were fears that if some of the top women started to compete on the men's tour, it would kill the LPGA and knock a lot of the women out of being able to compete at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Yea, I remember...
The thing about baseball is that there really isn't any professional baseball (or softball). There's a lot of "amateur" (school) support for it, though.
Ultimately, I just think that baseball, due to both the game itself and a pent up amateur supply glut, is in a unique position when it comes to putting women into the professional ranks. Also, this isn't the 50's or 60's (where black players, for example, were playing in "equal but separate" pro leagues) and any women who are given a chance will very likely come up through the farm ranks. That would certainly put any appearance of "circus signings" to rest.
I think that if a woman does play in the MLB, then it would be a devastating pitcher for an AL team. I don't see a woman being able to hit anyone other than Tim Wakefield any time soon, but those pitchers are just absolutely devastating.
Anyone ever see that DVD with Jennie Finch, and they had a whole section on all the major leaguers she struck out? Astounding.
I don't think its at all like the color barier..
it is and isn't. A black man and white man are equal in every way, but a man and woman aren't built the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty86
That's how I see it. The color barier being broken was huge, and opened up the league for all of the talent that we see today. A woman breaking a gender barier will not have the same effect. I'm sorry, maybe someday there will be a few women playing, or maybe even one who is great... but women in the MLB will not up the level of play and bring more people (for the right reasons at least) to ball parks.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
but do you believe over time women could catch up? or will there always be this signifigant difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Jennie Finch? I thought her name was Jackie Mitchell...who struck out the Babe and Gehrig back to back in an exhibition game....if memory serves me correctly...she was raised by a hall of famer. or at least learned the game from oneQuote:
Originally Posted by 5dodgers5
I really don't see how women would play in MLB. If anything, women will get their own league before anything else.
Why would MLB do that, though? It'd be much cheaper to simply allow teams to start signing women to minor league contracts.
Besides, with the state the the WNBA is in (let alone the economy as a whole), I don't see anyone providing financing for a woman's only league at this point.
I don't see it happening for a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
A woman's only league is year's away...if ever...and it would likely be used to recruit softball players into a professional atmosphere after college. Which I don't really think there would be enough of a draw for fans after a few years. I sa let them join the MLB.....those that would be good enough, but not great in a woman's only league won't get much of a chance, but the pros are you might see some great women in there, and eventually see even better women playing.
Considering there are basic genetic differences between men and women, I don't see how it's possible for women overall to "catch up", short of us figuring how to restructure the DNA of the entire human race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
sorry maybe I should have broaden my explanation of "catch up"Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't think they will ever fully catch up...maybe 90/10 or 80/20 men to women...but I can see women developing at earlier rates in order to be able to produce women who could eventually play...if women know at an earlier age that they can make it...then they are more likely to train to become that type of ball player....although this could take decades on decades to happen....
I don't disagree with that.
Regardless, as I said earlier, all the stuff about the differences between men and women are basically irrelevant anyway. Sure, men and women as a whole are very different. However, there's an extreme sampling error in any professional athletics. There's nothing in the genetic code of humanity which prevents women from become super athletic, it's simply more rare.
I'm sure that it's true that there will never be as many female athletes at the professional skill level of the average male athlete, but... so what?