Hacker News Reader

Comment by syoc | Hacker News Reader

In highly competitive physical sports there would no woman at all in the olympics for example. The 100m dash woman world record has disputed legality and sits at 10.49s. That is 6339 fastest recorded time for men.

Not having gender separated competition would probably decimate female sport participation in quite a lot of domains.

The short armed argument that you actually raise is more interesting. There are weight classes in boxing, and there could probably be arm length classes in swimming as well, but other physical differentiator that would take the place of arm length. I'm not really able to conclude on anything, but have feeling that the physical and cultural gender difference is large and important enough that it is prioritized, while arm length for instance is not.

View on HN

One could try handicapping as is done in horse racing to even things out.

See https://www.britishhorseracing.com/about/handicapping/ "Around 60% of all of the races run in Britain each year are handicaps. These are races where the Handicappers try to give each horse an equal chance of winning by allocating them different weights.

The highest rated (or ‘best’) horse in the race is given the highest weight to carry; and then inferior horses will carry lower weights.

For most owners, handicaps offer their best chance of winning a race. Without them, the top horses would almost always win and there would be no point in owning anything other than a top horse."

This might make sense in gambling, but I don’t see how it applies to the Olympics. I’m sure I (a non-runner) could beat Olympic runners in a race if they hade 150 pound vests on, but why is that interesting?

Now obviously that’s a dumb example, but why would it be interesting to see olympic sprinters beat Usain Bolt in a sprint if Bolt has a 10 pound vest on? I feel like the challenge at that point is determining how much to handicap everyone, and all the results would tell you is if you handicapped them correctly or not.

Handicapping athletes in the Olympics? That entirely defeats the spirit of sport and competition in general.

Some people are better than others. Sport is all about determine who is best.

Diana Moon Glampers strongly agrees with this suggestion.

> In highly competitive physical sports there be would no woman at all in the olympics for example.

In (edit: some) highly competitive physical sports there would be no person below median height at all in the olympics for example.

We can slice and dice all sorts of extremely visible inborn characteristics that will over time hopefully have just as much cultural relevance as sex or gender, as the cultural relevance of sex and gender decreases [0]. As that happens, we’re going to have to reevaluate what we culturally look for in sports. At the amateur level, hopefully this isn’t too hard, but I have no idea whether it will make professional sports more or less accessible.

[0] While height is mostly out of your control, it’s still unclear which of the kids in tryout team will end up tall enough to compete. That’s where sex and gender are more of a clear split, because you know most of the kids on the girls team won’t end up on a men’s team, so the split remains stable as they grow up.

I consider gymnastics as a highly competitive physical sport and the best gymnasts are usually below median height.

Doh, I meant in some of them, not all of them. I had basketball in mind, but words are hard.

"In highly competitive physical sports there would be no person below median height at all in the olympics for example."

That's not true for all sports. Gymnastics is highly physical and favors short people. Likewise, wrestling and Judo favor people who are short for their weight.

I do think height classes would make sense in basketball though, just as we have weight classes in combat sports.

Yeah that’s on me. Writing is hard. I meant some, not all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com