I feel like chess is pretty similar and an even better example of the cultural aspect of things as there is literally *no* advantage from being a man or a woman in chess physically (it's literally a mind sport), but yet we still see that men dominate at the highest level because they are given more opportunities and encouragement to learn chess culturally. In chess there are women's events, but there actually aren't men's events. Just women's and mixed as far as I know. And the women's events are there for engagement as well (there are even special titles like WGM (woman grandmaster). This gives women the fair shot that we deserve in mixed events where we can compete against men just like anyone else, but also allows there to be events where women are spotlighted and recognized for their skill in the game.
Personally, I think the best reason to persist with this is one you mentioned: engagement. The same is true of all of the shooting events as well, where the genetic advantages that men have are minimal. Perhaps someday we will culturally get to a point where women naturally gravitate towards competitive sport as much as men do, but we just aren't there yet. In the meantime, we should keep the separate divisions for that reason alone, even in sports where women's physical disadvantages are not very pronounced.
very well said and explained with data. I will show this to some of the women in my club. This one lady is working on 50m and I told her that's something to be proud of.
Thank you for pointing out the endurance requirement. I also appreciate the 555 v. 563 mean point you listed at 8:30. This is only about 1.45% different. Far closer than the 20% difference found in men v. women properly trained weight lighting. Here in the U.S., we have seen more women practicing at the gun range than we have in years past. Maybe we will see this translate into closing that 1.45% gap.
You made really good points. Though seems men and women are potentially able to compete with each other, so maybe there could be mixed competitions. Incidentally we need more archery that involves moving targets.
You missed the point. Yes, one or 2 women would be able to compete, but it would eliminate over 50% of the women from thy Olympics that now have a chance because the genders are separated. And people today simply won't accept that reality.
This was also shown when there was a mixed gender class in two of the largest archery tournaments in the US in barebow: The Lancaster Archery Classic and the US Indoor Nationals. In both cases, not only were the women in the clear minority, the women never made the finals. This in spite of some of the world's best female barebow archers competing. Taking the top archers as an example as always suspect because their performance is an outlier by definition--as you point out. It is also important to note, the world record for the 70m qualification round for men is 702 shot by Brady Ellison and the Olympic record of 700 shot by Kim Woojin.
And to be clear, a lot of people are coming from a blind spot. They see one or 2 women being competitive and forget about every single other woman that only has a chance to be in the Olympics because the genders are separated. But this is always the case. Women and feminist men are always ready to throw 90% of women under the bus for the ego of the top 1% of women overachievers.
The conclusion is very interesting, with the "social" aspects that surround the sport having a high influence on both grassroot recruitment into the sport and willingness/opportunity to train and compete. An extreme example is horse-riding: most if not all of the physical requirement relies on the animal, and the lower-body stability that you mentioned might give women a slight edge. And despite the historically highly masculine aspect of horse-riding, in clubs, especially among juniors, girls are an overwhelming majority, and as a result in local junior competitions winners are overwhelmingly female. But at international level among senior competitors, women are suddenly few and far between, for three main reasons: 1) women are left in charge of the majority of household chores and parenting, so upon reaching adulthood have to give up on their hobby more often than men, 2) social construct requires men to be competitive and women to be caring, so when riding becomes more a matter of winning at all costs than enjoying the connexion with the horse, men are more likely to choose that path than women, and 3) pregnancy and riding are highly incompatible, and even for top-level riders clubs and federations don't care about supporting them during pregnancy and maternity and helping them back to top level after that. These elements are present for all sports, but are caricatured to the extreme with horse-riding. So, with archery, while there might be anatomical advantages to men (draw-weight, arm skeletal structure...) there might also be a trend of the gap shrinking with time - and while the physiological differences might create a limit to that shrinking, it's not impossible to think that in the near future, there could be for example a mixed 18-m indoor under-35# category at the Olympics.
on your point about draw weight and wind spread, I think the draw weight alone is important wind obviously is a factor but even in an indoor event, draw weight should effect grouping simply because of the smaller trajectory and lower margin of error/variation edit: your point is also strengthened by the fact that some men shoot lower dw bows and some women shoot higher. Kim Woojin shot a 46lb iirc and Lim sihyeon shoots 45 (according to a 2019 forum post)
So it's mainly a cultural thing more than a sheer ability thing...more men participate, therefore men have to be better to rise to the top, because cultures encourage men more and give them more freedom to do so. I agree that the segregation may be necessary so long as that cultural difference remains true. The question for me, therefore, is how to make that culture change?
I feel we can't ignore the physical differences entirely. The general pattern of men having more upper body strength does give a very slight advantage when using heavier draw weights over longer distance. The data shows the Korean women as outliers. Remove them and the stats are heavily skewed in favour of men - and this includes results in indoor events, and with compound bows. The big shift begins with a simple fundamental principle: money. People will go where the money is. If there was big money in competitive archery, more people would do it as a viable career. If more people want do it and there is money in it, more money is invested in support services to advance people to competitive level. If those support networks exist, more people will find a way to get into the sport, and over time, it becomes normalised. But this is an idealistic model. Mainstream sports continue to struggle with huge gaps between men and women. A niche sport like archery has very little chance of a unified competitive scene. The big question is whether archery _wants_ to unify.
@@NUSensei Agreed. If draw weights were standardized, I think it would come down money, like you said, along with cultural value. Korean women are outliers because they live in a culture that values the sport, and their participation in it, more than others do. In a way it's similar to why European men's soccer teams are so much better than U.S. ones. In Europe, the money is in soccer, while in the U.S., it's in football, basketball, and baseball, so that is where the best athletic talent concentrates. On the women's side, there are fewer other major sports drawing talent away (really, just basketball) so our women's team is a superpower. Finally, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your video on the Simsek bow...I just bought one recently and I'm trying to learn how to use it (I'm a complete archery novice) and watching what you did helped.
Remove the SK women and it's a whole different story. I wanted to state the exact facts in this video to Peter Pan glad you brought the facts yet again. The other issue is if we accept that the women are better than why would it be acceptable to have mixed comp in archery but unacceptable to have mixed comps where men are better in other sports. You either do it in every sport or not at all. Mixed sports that involve another element such as a race car or horse are even more complex.
Zhang was the first & only women to get to the podium, in 1991 they had decided that women would have a separate division after the 92 Olympics, society is flawed this story is exaggerated
My old shotgun coach was actually in the International mix when all this went down so I got the inside story. He even did some coaching with the Chinese national team back then. The ISSF (then the UIT) was an incredibly sexist organization back in 1992 and they were absolutely scandalized when Zhang Shan won the gold, even though Zhang was one of six women in the competition. The UIT's "solution" was a bit of a bribe. They told the top women shooters that they would create their own women-only event starting in 1996 (double trap) but that they would no longer be able to complete in skeet or trap. Since women would now be guaranteed three medals for themselves, they gladly signed on to the deal. Kim Rhode won her first of many medals by winning the double trap in Atlanta and rest should have been history...except. What a lot of people don't realize is that while a city has to kiss a lot of butts to win the right to host a Games, once they have done so, they actually have a lot of power. And Sydney basically told the UIT to pound sand and opened up men's and women's events all three of skeet, trap, and double trap. Part of the reason they did that is because they had one of the world's best MEN's double trap shooters, who did end up taking the silver. And after Sydney the genie was out of the bottle and it stayed like that until, ironically, WOMEN's double trap, an event originally created just for them, was cut from the 2008 Games but men's remained. Men's would go bye-bye as well, but not until 2020 when they introduced mixed team events.
I hate TH-cam so much. It closed the comment box when the video ended and deleted my comment. Sigh.... Too tired to type it all and voice to text isn't working on this phone. I will just say I agree with you and others are missing the is not men's ego that separated the genders, but instead feminism. Feminism won't allow that only 3 of the top 20 scores are women, even if the top score is a woman because they can claim women aren't represented. It's that simple but I had a lot more data to use if anybody wants to hear it, reply and I can type it up on a computer later.
This topic again? Perfect example as always; Chess. Yes, there are some really good female players that could easily beat male players but in the top 100 chess players there are literally barley 3 female players and that’s being very generous. (Side note; I think these debates come from individuals complaining that women are not making the same $$$ as men.. )🤷♂️
There's also a nuance with chess: there is no separate men's division. It is an open division that anyone can enter. The Women's Championship was specifically created to promote chess among women.
Chess is a good example of where women today really can't understand how different women and men are so they think it should be an even sport. Men have multiple advantages. I can't stand typing on the phone but if anybody is interested, reply and I can type it up on a computer later.
the fact that women would fall lower in the ranks doesnt answer why they are separate. There are plenty of men (elite level) who will never be top ten, that doesnt mean that the bottom level men should be separated from the top
There's no issue with men not making top ten. Those who don't qualify... don't qualify. That's status quo. The issue is when women and men compete together under the assumption that they are equal. The data at elite level clearly says that they are not. If only 3 out of the top 16 are women, that's not a good indicator that the sport is ready to combine into one event. Even if a woman wins an open tournament, the net effect may result in reduced representation. The middle of the field athlete at world level wouldn't make the cut in an open event where 80% will be men.
@@NUSensei what i mean is that if women consistently placed in top fifty it wouldn't be any different than for any man who consistently placed outside top fifty. To say that those (poor) showings would cause a lack of confidence in women would, to me, be the same as any male professional sports team which hasn't been to playoffs in past twenty years- They still play, the still compete, they dont expect a separate league to cater to them Whats the difference in your opinion?
@@derekofbaltimore One word: *If.* I'm actually releasing a video reply to this comment that does more number crunching. I combined the men and women for the past 4 Olympics, as well as the World Cup events from 2024 and 2023 which have more participants. I used the top 64 as the cut-off for the elimination rounds as is standard for World Archery events. The 2024 Olympics was exceptional in that the combined top 64 would be 40% women. However, one must remember that the weather conditions were different: the women shot in the cooler morning while the men shot in around 29 degrees Celsius in the afternoon, so the men's score was on average lower than usual. When I compared other events, the split in the top 64 was usually around 25% women, to as low as 10%. _Some_ women can consistently rank in the Top 64, but most do not. That reflects a systemic difference between men and women in the event. Is it really fair to combine the two with the finals being vastly dominated by men? With 80% of women competitors not really having a chance to make the cut? Secondly, this has the flow-down effect. That's the world's best we are comparing. The gap is far wider at lower levels, and it wouldn't make sense for women to struggle through a mixed event at state and national level, nor would it make sense to separate them at these levels but combine them at international level.
@@NUSensei im not denying they may struggle. You certainly know your stuff and i appreciate you bringing data. But still just because a group stuggles doesn't automatically result in a split league. Examples where i would agree with your assessment- Combat sports (gender and weight classes) Para and special olympics Amateur vs professional leagues (farm system in baseball for example) Examples where just because a group could and do perform poorly they can still try against the big boys Mr olympia(many many dynasties where there was a single winner for 5-6-7-8 years in a row. In a competition about aesthetics and preference it could be argued the judges simply liked one guy for a while and thus the other competitors really had zero chance to win.. But still competed) Open chess ( bestwomen fall outside of the top 100 but still enter competition) Detroit lions (haven't been TO a superbowl in almost 60 years but officials dont feel sorry for them and make a new league where they can dominant) Short men in nba ( there is no official minimum height cutoff though statitics could be used to justify one) I think that if you data is the reason the officials in archery have split the leagues then cool. But to me the question can only really be asked of those who made the recommendation.
@@derekofbaltimore I feel that the spread of examples is stripping all of the context from archery. Archery wasn't split. It was exclusively a men's practice due to its connection with hunting and warfare, and the use of bows was greatly favourable to the upper body strength that men are more inclined to develop. Archery for women only really took off in the 18th century with the gentrification of archery into a sport. Women used lighter bows, which meant shorter distances, which meant separate competitions for men and women. The decision wasn't made to split them. There were already segregated. There has to be a reason to merge them together. The only reason to merge the event would if there is a clear parity in performance. There is not, especially if you remove the South Korean outliers.
This is awfully long winded when the whole thing can be summed up pretty quickly. Men don't have any real advantage over women in archery using modern equipment. Any differences in skill, really have nothing to do with the physical differences between men and women. Conclusion? The segregation of men and women in archery is just a hold over from a bygone era, and should be done with already.
That's... the opposite of the conclusion that was presented. The follow-up video goes through the scores for international events for 2023 and 2024, including compound archery. At elite level, men consistently and substantially outperform women on the same event.
@@NUSensei I wasn't saying my conclusion was the same as yours. You're missing the point. If you look at e-sports, men also play video games better than women do. But the difference in skill is not due to physical differences between men and women. As such, there's no justification in segregating the two. What you should have instead is a category where everyone can compete, and another women's only category to encourage women to get involved in the sport.
But you are wrong. It is due to physical differences. It's like you can't see the scoring. Outside of one or 2 women, the men smash the women so bad that more than half the women wouldn't even be there if it was only mixed gender and these days that won't be accepted.
@@waltermh111 It's not, and I already addressed this. Males also outperform females in e-sports, but the difference in skill has nothing to do with the physical differences between males and females.
@Malamockq yes, some of it is also mental. We have very different brains. It's night and day. Some of more about the chemicals, like testerone makes us more competitive, more aggressive, more focused on technical stuff. Things that benefit exports. And fact is, exports requires physical action. And you are wrong about this.. Men have more endurance, which esports needs, better stress regulation, better twitch responses, faster eye tracking, etc.... The women of esports fail on every physical metric. This shouldn't be hard to understand. Women are different from men because they have children and the things that make men different, the things that they focus on are the things that would greatly increase the chance of miscarriage in women. It would be hard for women to have children at all. Some have a high chance of causing infertility in women. If women became too much like men, the human race stops existing.
The main cause was that when it was still a mixed, women consistently beat man in the competition. And as it was still in times were woman equality was something that was, well, to say the harsh truth, frowned upon, the sport association of the bad old days couldn't let it slide and at 1st banned woman altogether and later split man and woman competitions Many man still do have that male superiority mindset & the frail ego that comes with it, that they wouldn't be able to loose against a woman without them seeing it as loosing face through it To those man I only can say Git Gut or git lost!
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
I feel like chess is pretty similar and an even better example of the cultural aspect of things as there is literally *no* advantage from being a man or a woman in chess physically (it's literally a mind sport), but yet we still see that men dominate at the highest level because they are given more opportunities and encouragement to learn chess culturally. In chess there are women's events, but there actually aren't men's events. Just women's and mixed as far as I know. And the women's events are there for engagement as well (there are even special titles like WGM (woman grandmaster). This gives women the fair shot that we deserve in mixed events where we can compete against men just like anyone else, but also allows there to be events where women are spotlighted and recognized for their skill in the game.
Personally, I think the best reason to persist with this is one you mentioned: engagement. The same is true of all of the shooting events as well, where the genetic advantages that men have are minimal. Perhaps someday we will culturally get to a point where women naturally gravitate towards competitive sport as much as men do, but we just aren't there yet. In the meantime, we should keep the separate divisions for that reason alone, even in sports where women's physical disadvantages are not very pronounced.
very well said and explained with data. I will show this to some of the women in my club. This one lady is working on 50m and I told her that's something to be proud of.
Thank you for pointing out the endurance requirement. I also appreciate the 555 v. 563 mean point you listed at 8:30. This is only about 1.45% different. Far closer than the 20% difference found in men v. women properly trained weight lighting. Here in the U.S., we have seen more women practicing at the gun range than we have in years past. Maybe we will see this translate into closing that 1.45% gap.
You made really good points. Though seems men and women are potentially able to compete with each other, so maybe there could be mixed competitions. Incidentally we need more archery that involves moving targets.
There is a doubles mixed team in the Olympics if I’m not mistaken
You are correct
You missed the point. Yes, one or 2 women would be able to compete, but it would eliminate over 50% of the women from thy Olympics that now have a chance because the genders are separated.
And people today simply won't accept that reality.
good info.Thank you
This was also shown when there was a mixed gender class in two of the largest archery tournaments in the US in barebow: The Lancaster Archery Classic and the US Indoor Nationals. In both cases, not only were the women in the clear minority, the women never made the finals. This in spite of some of the world's best female barebow archers competing. Taking the top archers as an example as always suspect because their performance is an outlier by definition--as you point out. It is also important to note, the world record for the 70m qualification round for men is 702 shot by Brady Ellison and the Olympic record of 700 shot by Kim Woojin.
And to be clear, a lot of people are coming from a blind spot. They see one or 2 women being competitive and forget about every single other woman that only has a chance to be in the Olympics because the genders are separated.
But this is always the case. Women and feminist men are always ready to throw 90% of women under the bus for the ego of the top 1% of women overachievers.
The conclusion is very interesting, with the "social" aspects that surround the sport having a high influence on both grassroot recruitment into the sport and willingness/opportunity to train and compete.
An extreme example is horse-riding: most if not all of the physical requirement relies on the animal, and the lower-body stability that you mentioned might give women a slight edge. And despite the historically highly masculine aspect of horse-riding, in clubs, especially among juniors, girls are an overwhelming majority, and as a result in local junior competitions winners are overwhelmingly female. But at international level among senior competitors, women are suddenly few and far between, for three main reasons: 1) women are left in charge of the majority of household chores and parenting, so upon reaching adulthood have to give up on their hobby more often than men, 2) social construct requires men to be competitive and women to be caring, so when riding becomes more a matter of winning at all costs than enjoying the connexion with the horse, men are more likely to choose that path than women, and 3) pregnancy and riding are highly incompatible, and even for top-level riders clubs and federations don't care about supporting them during pregnancy and maternity and helping them back to top level after that.
These elements are present for all sports, but are caricatured to the extreme with horse-riding. So, with archery, while there might be anatomical advantages to men (draw-weight, arm skeletal structure...) there might also be a trend of the gap shrinking with time - and while the physiological differences might create a limit to that shrinking, it's not impossible to think that in the near future, there could be for example a mixed 18-m indoor under-35# category at the Olympics.
on your point about draw weight and wind spread, I think the draw weight alone is important
wind obviously is a factor but even in an indoor event, draw weight should effect grouping simply because of the smaller trajectory and lower margin of error/variation
edit: your point is also strengthened by the fact that some men shoot lower dw bows and some women shoot higher. Kim Woojin shot a 46lb iirc and Lim sihyeon shoots 45 (according to a 2019 forum post)
2024 Olympic archery gear list video? 🙏
So it's mainly a cultural thing more than a sheer ability thing...more men participate, therefore men have to be better to rise to the top, because cultures encourage men more and give them more freedom to do so. I agree that the segregation may be necessary so long as that cultural difference remains true. The question for me, therefore, is how to make that culture change?
I feel we can't ignore the physical differences entirely. The general pattern of men having more upper body strength does give a very slight advantage when using heavier draw weights over longer distance. The data shows the Korean women as outliers. Remove them and the stats are heavily skewed in favour of men - and this includes results in indoor events, and with compound bows.
The big shift begins with a simple fundamental principle: money. People will go where the money is. If there was big money in competitive archery, more people would do it as a viable career. If more people want do it and there is money in it, more money is invested in support services to advance people to competitive level. If those support networks exist, more people will find a way to get into the sport, and over time, it becomes normalised.
But this is an idealistic model. Mainstream sports continue to struggle with huge gaps between men and women. A niche sport like archery has very little chance of a unified competitive scene.
The big question is whether archery _wants_ to unify.
@@NUSensei Agreed. If draw weights were standardized, I think it would come down money, like you said, along with cultural value. Korean women are outliers because they live in a culture that values the sport, and their participation in it, more than others do.
In a way it's similar to why European men's soccer teams are so much better than U.S. ones. In Europe, the money is in soccer, while in the U.S., it's in football, basketball, and baseball, so that is where the best athletic talent concentrates. On the women's side, there are fewer other major sports drawing talent away (really, just basketball) so our women's team is a superpower.
Finally, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your video on the Simsek bow...I just bought one recently and I'm trying to learn how to use it (I'm a complete archery novice) and watching what you did helped.
Women are the vast majority of those in horse archery. Women weigh less, giving them an advantage. Men still win the majority of the top competitions.
Remove the SK women and it's a whole different story. I wanted to state the exact facts in this video to Peter Pan glad you brought the facts yet again. The other issue is if we accept that the women are better than why would it be acceptable to have mixed comp in archery but unacceptable to have mixed comps where men are better in other sports. You either do it in every sport or not at all. Mixed sports that involve another element such as a race car or horse are even more complex.
Zhang was the first & only women to get to the podium, in 1991 they had decided that women would have a separate division after the 92 Olympics, society is flawed this story is exaggerated
My old shotgun coach was actually in the International mix when all this went down so I got the inside story. He even did some coaching with the Chinese national team back then. The ISSF (then the UIT) was an incredibly sexist organization back in 1992 and they were absolutely scandalized when Zhang Shan won the gold, even though Zhang was one of six women in the competition. The UIT's "solution" was a bit of a bribe. They told the top women shooters that they would create their own women-only event starting in 1996 (double trap) but that they would no longer be able to complete in skeet or trap. Since women would now be guaranteed three medals for themselves, they gladly signed on to the deal. Kim Rhode won her first of many medals by winning the double trap in Atlanta and rest should have been history...except. What a lot of people don't realize is that while a city has to kiss a lot of butts to win the right to host a Games, once they have done so, they actually have a lot of power. And Sydney basically told the UIT to pound sand and opened up men's and women's events all three of skeet, trap, and double trap. Part of the reason they did that is because they had one of the world's best MEN's double trap shooters, who did end up taking the silver. And after Sydney the genie was out of the bottle and it stayed like that until, ironically, WOMEN's double trap, an event originally created just for them, was cut from the 2008 Games but men's remained. Men's would go bye-bye as well, but not until 2020 when they introduced mixed team events.
👍
I hunted wildebeest with a Black Widow at 90 pounds draw... I'd like to see a women pull that...
I hate TH-cam so much. It closed the comment box when the video ended and deleted my comment. Sigh....
Too tired to type it all and voice to text isn't working on this phone.
I will just say I agree with you and others are missing the is not men's ego that separated the genders, but instead feminism.
Feminism won't allow that only 3 of the top 20 scores are women, even if the top score is a woman because they can claim women aren't represented.
It's that simple but I had a lot more data to use if anybody wants to hear it, reply and I can type it up on a computer later.
This topic again?
Perfect example as always; Chess.
Yes, there are some really good female players that could easily beat male players but in the top 100 chess players there are literally barley 3 female players and that’s being very generous.
(Side note; I think these debates come from individuals complaining that women are not making the same $$$ as men.. )🤷♂️
There's also a nuance with chess: there is no separate men's division. It is an open division that anyone can enter. The Women's Championship was specifically created to promote chess among women.
Chess is a good example of where women today really can't understand how different women and men are so they think it should be an even sport.
Men have multiple advantages. I can't stand typing on the phone but if anybody is interested, reply and I can type it up on a computer later.
the fact that women would fall lower in the ranks doesnt answer why they are separate. There are plenty of men (elite level) who will never be top ten, that doesnt mean that the bottom level men should be separated from the top
There's no issue with men not making top ten. Those who don't qualify... don't qualify. That's status quo.
The issue is when women and men compete together under the assumption that they are equal. The data at elite level clearly says that they are not. If only 3 out of the top 16 are women, that's not a good indicator that the sport is ready to combine into one event. Even if a woman wins an open tournament, the net effect may result in reduced representation. The middle of the field athlete at world level wouldn't make the cut in an open event where 80% will be men.
@@NUSensei what i mean is that if women consistently placed in top fifty it wouldn't be any different than for any man who consistently placed outside top fifty.
To say that those (poor) showings would cause a lack of confidence in women would, to me, be the same as any male professional sports team which hasn't been to playoffs in past twenty years-
They still play, the still compete, they dont expect a separate league to cater to them
Whats the difference in your opinion?
@@derekofbaltimore One word: *If.*
I'm actually releasing a video reply to this comment that does more number crunching. I combined the men and women for the past 4 Olympics, as well as the World Cup events from 2024 and 2023 which have more participants. I used the top 64 as the cut-off for the elimination rounds as is standard for World Archery events. The 2024 Olympics was exceptional in that the combined top 64 would be 40% women. However, one must remember that the weather conditions were different: the women shot in the cooler morning while the men shot in around 29 degrees Celsius in the afternoon, so the men's score was on average lower than usual.
When I compared other events, the split in the top 64 was usually around 25% women, to as low as 10%. _Some_ women can consistently rank in the Top 64, but most do not. That reflects a systemic difference between men and women in the event. Is it really fair to combine the two with the finals being vastly dominated by men? With 80% of women competitors not really having a chance to make the cut?
Secondly, this has the flow-down effect. That's the world's best we are comparing. The gap is far wider at lower levels, and it wouldn't make sense for women to struggle through a mixed event at state and national level, nor would it make sense to separate them at these levels but combine them at international level.
@@NUSensei im not denying they may struggle. You certainly know your stuff and i appreciate you bringing data. But still just because a group stuggles doesn't automatically result in a split league.
Examples where i would agree with your assessment-
Combat sports (gender and weight classes)
Para and special olympics
Amateur vs professional leagues (farm system in baseball for example)
Examples where just because a group could and do perform poorly they can still try against the big boys
Mr olympia(many many dynasties where there was a single winner for 5-6-7-8 years in a row. In a competition about aesthetics and preference it could be argued the judges simply liked one guy for a while and thus the other competitors really had zero chance to win.. But still competed)
Open chess ( bestwomen fall outside of the top 100 but still enter competition)
Detroit lions (haven't been TO a superbowl in almost 60 years but officials dont feel sorry for them and make a new league where they can dominant)
Short men in nba ( there is no official minimum height cutoff though statitics could be used to justify one)
I think that if you data is the reason the officials in archery have split the leagues then cool. But to me the question can only really be asked of those who made the recommendation.
@@derekofbaltimore I feel that the spread of examples is stripping all of the context from archery. Archery wasn't split. It was exclusively a men's practice due to its connection with hunting and warfare, and the use of bows was greatly favourable to the upper body strength that men are more inclined to develop. Archery for women only really took off in the 18th century with the gentrification of archery into a sport. Women used lighter bows, which meant shorter distances, which meant separate competitions for men and women.
The decision wasn't made to split them. There were already segregated. There has to be a reason to merge them together.
The only reason to merge the event would if there is a clear parity in performance. There is not, especially if you remove the South Korean outliers.
This is awfully long winded when the whole thing can be summed up pretty quickly. Men don't have any real advantage over women in archery using modern equipment. Any differences in skill, really have nothing to do with the physical differences between men and women. Conclusion? The segregation of men and women in archery is just a hold over from a bygone era, and should be done with already.
That's... the opposite of the conclusion that was presented. The follow-up video goes through the scores for international events for 2023 and 2024, including compound archery. At elite level, men consistently and substantially outperform women on the same event.
@@NUSensei I wasn't saying my conclusion was the same as yours. You're missing the point. If you look at e-sports, men also play video games better than women do. But the difference in skill is not due to physical differences between men and women. As such, there's no justification in segregating the two. What you should have instead is a category where everyone can compete, and another women's only category to encourage women to get involved in the sport.
But you are wrong. It is due to physical differences. It's like you can't see the scoring. Outside of one or 2 women, the men smash the women so bad that more than half the women wouldn't even be there if it was only mixed gender and these days that won't be accepted.
@@waltermh111 It's not, and I already addressed this. Males also outperform females in e-sports, but the difference in skill has nothing to do with the physical differences between males and females.
@Malamockq yes, some of it is also mental. We have very different brains. It's night and day.
Some of more about the chemicals, like testerone makes us more competitive, more aggressive, more focused on technical stuff. Things that benefit exports. And fact is, exports requires physical action. And you are wrong about this.. Men have more endurance, which esports needs, better stress regulation, better twitch responses, faster eye tracking, etc....
The women of esports fail on every physical metric.
This shouldn't be hard to understand. Women are different from men because they have children and the things that make men different, the things that they focus on are the things that would greatly increase the chance of miscarriage in women. It would be hard for women to have children at all. Some have a high chance of causing infertility in women.
If women became too much like men, the human race stops existing.
The main cause was that when it was still a mixed, women consistently beat man in the competition.
And as it was still in times were woman equality was something that was, well, to say the harsh truth, frowned upon, the sport association of the bad old days couldn't let it slide and at 1st banned woman altogether and later split man and woman competitions
Many man still do have that male superiority mindset & the frail ego that comes with it, that they wouldn't be able to loose against a woman without them seeing it as loosing face through it
To those man I only can say
Git Gut or git lost!
Surely you did not watch the video.
The video isn't accurate. @DoubtinThomas
@@queerdor"This video isn't accurate because I don't agree with it."
@@queerdorcare to elaborate?
He literally just used recorded scores. That can't be inaccurate. It's pure data.