Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[Chadwiko]

She ran in a seat that was won by the greens? So it wasn't a legit attempt at being elected then. Not sure why she'd waste her time like that.

Grifter's gonna grift.

Run for office = solicit political campaign donations en masse.

 

[kirsti]

She didn't want to fight someone born as a man it appears. I would say all female boxers have sparred men at one point or another, and I don't think many want to actually compete against one. Blokes generally just hit harder and can take a punch better, and yeah I've held pads for plenty of men and women and there's generally a vast difference in power.

"According to a study, a male blow has 163% more impact than a woman's, even adjusted for weight," Bissonnette said.

Article doesn't say which study (just "a" study), would be interested to look at it

Morris (2020) is where this 163% false claim originated from. Morris et al. used a small cohort with design issues testing a SEATED overhead arm crank and pull - NOTHING to do with punching, and completely disregarding actual punch force studies that show otherwise, and close to equal punching force at impact.

Further, the Maximum figure is 162%, not 163 in Morris. Using 163% is a sure sign of regurgitating others rather than checking yourself.

Punch power is complex, and generally M+F produce the same punch force at impact, which is what counts in combat. Striking a target is a complex interplay of factors, technique being most important. Most GCs state that M have 163% the punching power of F, which is false, and is the figure for a seated overhead arm crank from Morris (2020), a limited study, and has NOTHING to do with punch force/power, the movement tested in Morris would actually work AGAINST development of a powerful punch. The movement is NOT punching. Using figures such as this in research demonstrates a zero understanding of the movements involved in punching, and has no relevance to the application of punches in reality. If people use this example, it demonstrates that they are citing studies that they have not understood. If they have used this study to claim M punch 163% that of F, it makes me question what other studies have been misrepresented or not understood in that paper.

This extract from Morris (2020) demonstrates the arm crank. I wonder, who ever thought that this represents punching? Punching power comes through the legs (gross oversimplification and reduction). The fist is the bullet, not the gun.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[kirsti]

A woman can indeed punch as hard as a man, currently being demonstrated in research taking place in Scotland.

An overhead arm crank does not translate to punching. The movement tested in Morris (2020) actually works against the development of punching power.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[burge13]

A woman can indeed punch as hard as a man, currently being demonstrated in research taking place in Scotland.

An overhead arm crank does not translate to punching. The movement tested in Morris (2020) actually works against the development of punching power.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Certainly backed by all the massive KOs we see in womens boxing that always go viral because there's so many. Happens every week, womens fight ends with a colossal right hand /s

Except, Shields, the greatest womens boxer ever cant even bust a grape...

 

[SnakeMan86]

Certainly backed by all the massive KOs we see in womens boxing that always go viral because there's so many. Happens every week, womens fight ends with a colossal right hand /s

Except, Shields, the greatest womens boxer ever cant even bust a grape...

Your higher level female boxers, they could probably punch as hard as an untrained male in the same weight class...

But a trained male boxer, in the same weight class... Give me a spell

 

[the_interloper]

Morris (2020) is where this 163% false claim originated from. Morris et al. used a small cohort with design issues testing a SEATED overhead arm crank and pull - NOTHING to do with punching, and completely disregarding actual punch force studies that show otherwise, and close to equal punching force at impact.

Further, the Maximum figure is 162%, not 163 in Morris. Using 163% is a sure sign of regurgitating others rather than checking yourself.

Punch power is complex, and generally M+F produce the same punch force at impact, which is what counts in combat. Striking a target is a complex interplay of factors, technique being most important. Most GCs state that M have 163% the punching power of F, which is false, and is the figure for a seated overhead arm crank from Morris (2020), a limited study, and has NOTHING to do with punch force/power, the movement tested in Morris would actually work AGAINST development of a powerful punch. The movement is NOT punching. Using figures such as this in research demonstrates a zero understanding of the movements involved in punching, and has no relevance to the application of punches in reality. If people use this example, it demonstrates that they are citing studies that they have not understood. If they have used this study to claim M punch 163% that of F, it makes me question what other studies have been misrepresented or not understood in that paper.

This extract from Morris (2020) demonstrates the arm crank. I wonder, who ever thought that this represents punching? Punching power comes through the legs (gross oversimplification and reduction). The fist is the bullet, not the gun.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Fair enough, I’m happy to not take that 163% study as gospel. Punching power is complex I agree, a lot of that is natural I think, can be improved with technique and training but I don’t accept that men and women generally punch with the same force.

It’s worth talking to female boxers about this id suggest, maybe you have already.

A woman can indeed punch as hard as a man, currently being demonstrated in research taking place in Scotland.

An overhead arm crank does not translate to punching. The movement tested in Morris (2020) actually works against the development of punching power.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Sure maybe a woman CAN punch as hard as a man, much like a 135 pounder COULD beat a heavyweight. But generally it’s smarter to separate boxers by weight classes and sexes, because there could be some disastrous results if you didn’t do this.

 

[Engimal v3]

A woman can indeed punch as hard as a man, currently being demonstrated in research taking place in Scotland.

It's hard to reconcile that against anecdotal evidence of women boxers and MMA fighters finishing fights less (and less brutally).

 

[Gethelred]

It's hard to reconcile that against anecdotal evidence of women boxers and MMA fighters finishing fights less (and less brutally).

I'm not a statistician nor am I a big bloodsports guy, but I've heard in the past that a lower pool of candidates between groups A and B can affect stuff like this. As in, if there's less women fighting than men, you're going to have less competition in the women's categories.

It's been argued before that the reason athletic outcomes diverge so strongly (and have been playing catchup ever since) between the genders is in part caused be the sheer numbers of competitors at all levels. Once funding and participation went up for women's categories, performances started trending upwards significantly.

 

[10571z]

It’s quite simple. Complete against the sex you were born. If you can’t you are like millions of others who can’t be professional athletes. Do something else with your life.

 

[Gralin]

It’s quite simple. Complete against the sex you were born. If you can’t you are like millions of others who can’t be professional athletes. Do something else with your life.

And at community sport level?

 

[10571z]

And at community sport level?

The same.

 

[Gralin]

The same.

And if a trans woman turned up at your footy club to play on the mens team?

 

[10571z]

And if a trans woman turned up at your footy club to play on the mens team?

No dramas. Can go up for selection like everyone else.

 

[the_interloper]

I'm not a statistician nor am I a big bloodsports guy, but I've heard in the past that a lower pool of candidates between groups A and B can affect stuff like this. As in, if there's less women fighting than men, you're going to have less competition in the women's categories.

It's been argued before that the reason athletic outcomes diverge so strongly (and have been playing catchup ever since) between the genders is in part caused be the sheer numbers of competitors at all levels. Once funding and participation went up for women's categories, performances started trending upwards significantly.

I'd agree with you that the talent level general in women's boxing is much lower than mens, and a lot has to do with the talent pool available I think. That is probably related to women's boxing not really being very popular and probably a stigma attached with it.

You can see this in the women's MMA game too. You probably know Ronda Rousey, well she was a very one dimensional fighter but because it was such a new sport she was able to dominate, much like Royce Gracie did early in MMA for similar reasons, and he was a similarly one dimensional grappler like Ronda was.

That said this is just in reference to skill, I don't think we'll see women "catch up" to men and being able to compete with them in combat on an even keel so to speak.

 

[faible]

Certainly backed by all the massive KOs we see in womens boxing that always go viral because there's so many. Happens every week, womens fight ends with a colossal right hand /s

Except, Shields, the greatest womens boxer ever cant even bust a grape...

kirsti is a genuinely good poster on this topic, no need to be snarky or sarcastic with her. Might be worth going back to look at her posts in part 1 of this thread for some perspective on her background.

 

[Gethelred]

I'd agree with you that the talent level general in women's boxing is much lower than mens, and a lot has to do with the talent pool available I think. That is probably related to women's boxing not really being very popular and probably a stigma attached with it.

You can see this in the women's MMA game too. You probably know Ronda Rousey, well she was a very one dimensional fighter but because it was such a new sport she was able to dominate, much like Royce Gracie did early in MMA for similar reasons, and he was a similarly one dimensional grappler like Ronda was.

The problem I have here is that while you're willing to acknowledge that this is a factor, you're also willing to say the following without much scientific basis:

That said this is just in reference to skill, I don't think we'll see women "catch up" to men and being able to compete with them in combat on an even keel so to speak.

It's not just skill that participation numbers affects. It's size, it's sport science funding, it's nutrition, it's sport and gender specific exercises.

Pugilism and fighting has been around as a man's sport for ****ing centuries.

The big problem - one could say, the elephant in the room in this thread - is that none of us are experts, but some of us are more willing to declare our lack of expertise than others. I manifestly think that there's no way burge13 or SnakeMan86 can dispute the findings shared by kirsti above, but both are more than happy to ridicule them.

It's arguably the bane of our times: that people are unwilling to say 'I don't know enough to argue with you'.

 

[SnakeMan86]

The problem I have here is that while you're willing to acknowledge that this is a factor, you're also willing to say the following without much scientific basis:

It's not just skill that participation numbers affects. It's size, it's sport science funding, it's nutrition, it's sport and gender specific exercises.

Pugilism and fighting has been around as a man's sport for ****ing centuries.

The big problem - one could say, the elephant in the room in this thread - is that none of us are experts, but some of us are more willing to declare our lack of expertise than others. I manifestly think that there's no way burge13 or SnakeMan86 can dispute the findings shared by kirsti above, but both are more than happy to ridicule them.

It's arguably the bane of our times: that people are unwilling to say 'I don't know enough to argue with you'.

We disputed the argument "A woman can punch as hard as a man"

Im sorry, but I didn't see in those studies where it showed us examples of woman elite boxers recording a punch with the same or greater PSI than a male, pound for pound or otherwise

It disputed the arm crank test. Which is valid, that does not accurately demonstrate punching power..

 

[Gralin]

No dramas. Can go up for selection like everyone else.

You know i can see your original response yeah?

 

[10571z]

You know i can see your original response yeah?

Yep..

 

[burge13]

The problem I have here is that while you're willing to acknowledge that this is a factor, you're also willing to say the following without much scientific basis:

It's not just skill that participation numbers affects. It's size, it's sport science funding, it's nutrition, it's sport and gender specific exercises.

Pugilism and fighting has been around as a man's sport for ****ing centuries.

The big problem - one could say, the elephant in the room in this thread - is that none of us are experts, but some of us are more willing to declare our lack of expertise than others. I manifestly think that there's no way burge13 or SnakeMan86 can dispute the findings shared by kirsti above, but both are more than happy to ridicule them.

It's arguably the bane of our times: that people are unwilling to say 'I don't know enough to argue with you'.

Women dont kick a ball as far as men, throw a ball as fast, bench press as much, run as fast. I dont need to read a study that claims women punch as hard, that study is flawed if it makes that claim. Or its taken alot of effort to get to that point

Go watch sport, mens and women's. You'll quickly refute the study

I also watch mens/womens boxing, so the very best female punchers in the world. They dont punch as hard as blokes. The study is complete fugazzi. You are welcome to join us in reality whenever you like but it is ok to acknowledge men are stronger/faster etc. Its not "progressive" to claim otherwise, its simply not living in reality

 

[10571z]

Is there any examples of transgender men making it in men’s sports?

 

[Gralin]

Is there any examples of transgender men making it in men’s sports?

Transgender man Patricio Manuel picks up third straight win as professional boxer 11 years after competing in women's Olympic trials

Transgender boxer Patricio Manuel recently improved his perfect professional record to 3-0. The 37-year-old had an amateur boxing career that included five national title wins and a trial for the 2…

talksport.com

 

[the_interloper]

The problem I have here is that while you're willing to acknowledge that this is a factor, you're also willing to say the following without much scientific basis:

It's not just skill that participation numbers affects. It's size, it's sport science funding, it's nutrition, it's sport and gender specific exercises.

Pugilism and fighting has been around as a man's sport for ****ing centuries.

The big problem - one could say, the elephant in the room in this thread - is that none of us are experts, but some of us are more willing to declare our lack of expertise than others. I manifestly think that there's no way burge13 or SnakeMan86 can dispute the findings shared by kirsti above, but both are more than happy to ridicule them.

It's arguably the bane of our times: that people are unwilling to say 'I don't know enough to argue with you'.

Sure I haven't done scientific studies, I've certainly watched enough male and female combat sports over the years, as well as years in boxing gyms and held pads for many different men and women of all abilities. I reckon that's enough to qualify that IN GENERAL men punch much harder than women.

The difference in skill level, access to the sport and acceptance of female combat sports may be a factor but is way down the list (IMO) in explaining why men punch much harder and should only be competing against those born as men.

Whether you think this can qualify me to dispute any of the findings by kirsti, well I don't know and I really don't care to be honest.

To be clear, I'm sure there are some women out there who can punch as hard as some blokes, but overall there is a large disparity on average. This is a mainstream view too, why do you think society (rightly) takes a very dim view of men being physically violent to their female partners?

 

[Gethelred]

Whether you think this can qualify me to dispute any of the findings by kirsti, well I don't know and I really don't care to be honest.

The problem, in a nutshell.

 

[Gethelred]

Women dont kick a ball as far as men, throw a ball as fast, bench press as much, run as fast. I dont need to read a study that claims women punch as hard, that study is flawed if it makes that claim. Or its taken alot of effort to get to that point

Go watch sport, mens and women's. You'll quickly refute the study

... tell me, did you read the post you quoted?

The problem I have here is that while you're willing to acknowledge that this is a factor, you're also willing to say the following without much scientific basis.

The above is not scientific. It's observational and experiential.

I also watch mens/womens boxing, so the very best female punchers in the world. They dont punch as hard as blokes. The study is complete fugazzi. You are welcome to join us in reality whenever you like but it is ok to acknowledge men are stronger/faster etc. Its not "progressive" to claim otherwise, its simply not living in reality

Can you definitively prove using studies and well researched hypotheses that this is the case, burge?

The honest answer is one supplied by Engimal v3 a while ago:

No, but I'm still right

... but it would require you to concede something.

Can you concede something, burge?

We disputed the argument "A woman can punch as hard as a man"

Im sorry, but I didn't see in those studies where it showed us examples of woman elite boxers recording a punch with the same or greater PSI than a male, pound for pound or otherwise

It disputed the arm crank test. Which is valid, that does not accurately demonstrate punching power..

... which was the basis - scientifically - for you stating that men's punching power is superior to a woman's. Now robbed of that basis, your opinion remains unchanged without scientific backing.

... which would be fine, if y'all were willing to admit it.

You seem to think that I'm saying the problem is that women can punch as hard as men, where I'm saying the problem is y'all's refusal to admit there's not much pretext scientifically for your position.

You're willing to undermine supplied studies purely with anecdote.