Joe Rogan moves to Spotify for over $100 million

[Deej 76920]

5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

he's a fucking giant tool...a guy of average intelligence, and dumb people think he's smart (as many others have said). 

I'm glad that CA has 1 fewer douchebag as we can use all the help we can get. 

Smart enough to get rich. Something, something, one born every minute. 

[ztejas 43537]

16 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

I did quite often before it became apparent he was sliding towards political nut jobs like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. Now the only time I'll listen is when he has legitimate scientists and/or celebrities I find entertaining. Which is far less than it used to be. 

Just because you don't like the politics of some of his guests doesn't make him a political hack. I haven't watched the Peterson episode but when he talks with Shapiro he's often offering counterpoints from a more moderate or liberal stance. He's not just giving Ben a platform to spout anything he wants unchecked.

And neither of those guys are "nut jobs". I don't want to CR the thread but that's obviously a politically biased view of them. 

 

[Gil Bang 26020]

26 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Just because you don't like the politics of some of his guests doesn't make him a political hack. I haven't watched the Peterson episode but when he talks with Shapiro he's often offering counterpoints from a more moderate or liberal stance. He's not just giving Ben a platform to spout anything he wants unchecked.

And neither of those guys are "nut jobs". I don't want to CR the thread but that's obviously a politically biased view of them. 

I wasn't aware that he has Ben Shapiro on his podcast. 

IIRC, Ben Shapiro has a radio show that's widely distributed, and is on 15 hours per week.  Do we REALLY need to hear more from Ben Shapiro?

[Fondren & Main 6742]

14 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I wasn't aware that he has Ben Shapiro on his podcast. 

IIRC, Ben Shapiro has a radio show that's widely distributed, and is on 15 hours per week.  Do we REALLY need to hear more from Ben Shapiro?

He also had Bernie on and Tulsi.  Stop crying.

[ztejas 43537]

14 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I wasn't aware that he has Ben Shapiro on his podcast. 

IIRC, Ben Shapiro has a radio show that's widely distributed, and is on 15 hours per week.  Do we REALLY need to hear more from Ben Shapiro?

Eh probably not. I don't listen to any of Ben's stuff or read his website but I do watch some of Joe's podcasts so it's just another vehicle I guess. 

To be fair, Joe has over 1500 episodes at this point. He cranks them out.

[Gil Bang 26020]

19 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

He also had Bernie on and Tulsi.  Stop crying.

Thanks for making my point.

[Fondren & Main 6742]

10 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Thanks for making my point.

[HoffaJimmy 316]

I actually enjoyed both the Shapiro and Tulsi episodes. Crazy I know but this isn't the CR so having an independent thought and listening to people you don't agree with is allowed here I believe......

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

I actually liked the episodes where he just shot the shit with his comedian buddies, or ufc guys.  Seems like he keeps trying or having to out do himself getting higher profile guests.  

[HoffaJimmy 316]

1 hour ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

I actually liked the episodes where he just shot the shit with his comedian buddies, or ufc guys.  Seems like he keeps trying or having to out do himself getting higher profile guests.  

 

Yeah, I could listen to him and a guy like Bill Burr shooting the shit and telling comedy club stories for hours. 

[Horn80 6131]

Don’t know anything about the guy except watching him on Fear Factor many years ago but completely understand him wanting to come to Texas to get away from Cali.  Kinda reminds me of that last scene photo of U.S. helicopters leaving Saigon before it fell.

[Biff Tannen 45741]

The only person I know who listens to Joe Rogan regularly is a stoner that believes in wild conspiracy theories.  That's all I need to know.

[Dennis Taylor 18871]

18 hours ago, ztejas said:

Do you... actually listen to his podcast? Maybe moving is about money for him and maybe he isn't as open and flippant as he used to be, but he is nothing near a "political hack".

I'd almost call him anti-poltical. 

do you even wanker bob, bro?

[Dennis Taylor 18871]

17 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I wasn't aware that he has Ben Shapiro on his podcast. 

IIRC, Ben Shapiro has a radio show that's widely distributed, and is on 15 hours per week.  Do we REALLY need to hear more from Ben Shapiro?

if you weren't aware Shapiro was on the show then what the hell difference does it make?  

[ztejas 43537]

22 minutes ago, Dennis Taylor said:

do you even wanker bob, bro?

Apparently not. 

[Bash Riprock 1695]

Gil Bang seems like he sucks.

It's just some dude's pod cast where he's talking about things he thinks are stupid or intriguing (conspiracies) and he talks politics where he has guests from both sides. Sometimes has other comics come on and he shoots the shit with them. 

But of of course someone will take issue with that. Karen. 

 

Is he a 'political hack' because he likes viewpoints from both sides? Which isn't something you are use to in your world?

Edited August 14, 2020 by Bash Riprock

[Fondren & Main 6742]

20 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

The only person I know who listens to Joe Rogan regularly is a stoner that believes in wild conspiracy theories.  That's all I need to know.

You’re friend is Eddie Bravo?

[Fondren & Main 6742]

1 hour ago, Fondren & Main said:

You’re friend is Eddie Bravo?

Hmm, meant to say your.  I guess that’s what I get for changing sentence structure mid thought and not proofreading it.

[52-80 19246]

1 hour ago, Fondren & Main said:

You’re friend is Eddie Bravo?

Pull that shit up jamie

[ztejas 43537]

2 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

You’re friend is Eddie Bravo?

Yeah, he volunteers at the state hospital.

[PRONG HORN 3159]

On 8/12/2020 at 10:06 PM, Gil Bang said:

he's a fucking giant tool...a guy of average intelligence, and dumb people think he's smart (as many others have said). 

 

Listen to him discuss with the "Adam Ruins Everything" guy.  Rogans no dummy.  He's probably smarter than 75% of posters here at least.  

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

Rogan let’s many stances go when he either doesn’t know or have an opinion but others he holds firm against guests. Even to a point of tossing them for stupid opinions.

i believe he used to have Dave Rubin on a few times. Rubin is a commentator that claims to be libertarian but has some odd takes. Rubin was arguing against govt regulations and threw out an offhand remark that builders shouldn’t be forced to follow building codes. He claimed that the market would regulate standards and bad builders would ultimately fall when customers rejected him. Rogan, who has some construction background, told Rubin he had no idea what he was talking about and that people would be screwed when problems occurred 10 years after the construction.

while rogan gets valid criticism for letting some guests make bad comments , he pushes back when he knows they’re full of shit. Especially with the rise of the podcast/YouTube political commentators these days.

[CooterBrown 18029]

Rogan has said his goal is to keep guests talking for 2.5-3.5 hours. He gauges how far he can push them so they don’t shut down or leave. Sometimes he follows them down the rabbit hole. Sometimes he calls bullshit. His show isn’t about finding the truth, it’s about having interesting conversations.

 

The one area he’s really good at is getting prepped for any guest. He’s ready to talk and ask relevant questions regardless of how insane the topic is.

[Dennis Taylor 18871]

15 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

Listen to him discuss with the "Adam Ruins Everything" guy.  Rogans no dummy.  He's probably smarter than 75% of posters here at least.  

 

 

he's probably smarter than everybody except the other ones that figured out how to make 9 figures by talking to people from a shed behind their house  

Edited August 17, 2020 by Dennis Taylor

[ztejas 43537]

7 hours ago, Dennis Taylor said:

that figured out how to make 9 figures by talking to people from a shed behind their house  

I mean he was like a C-list celebrity before his podcast blew up. He wasn't just some dude that started a podcast.

Oh and that Adam guy above is a fucking idiot. I don't need to listen to Rogan telling him off, I can tell how much of an idiot he is by listening to him talk for the first 20 seconds of the video. 

Nothing ever, in the history of mankind, worthwhile has been said immediately following the phrase "I'm not an expert, but..."

Edited August 18, 2020 by ztejas

[troph 24906]

Neither one of them are experts on that topic.

And my own personal experience - I was an average to above average athlete when I was younger and now I’m an average to above average athlete now that I’m older. Funny how that turned out. No magical advantage gained. And while I’m probably considered a power tennis player I’ve gotten creamed by women on the court that tooled me around and had just as much or more power than me. My record is slightly above .500 right now. And compared to men? My 15 year old still has peach fuzz on his face and he smokes me with his top spin forehand. I can’t hit as heavy of a ball as he can and he’s not even a man yet.

[PRONG HORN 3159]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

Neither one of them are experts on that topic.

And my own personal experience - I was an average to above average athlete when I was younger and now I’m an average to above average athlete now that I’m older. Funny how that turned out. No magical advantage gained. And while I’m probably considered a power tennis player I’ve gotten creamed by women on the court that tooled me around and had just as much or more power than me. My record is slightly above .500 right now. And compared to men? My 15 year old still has peach fuzz on his face and he smokes me with his top spin forehand. I can’t hit as heavy of a ball as he can and he’s not even a man yet.

 

Tennis is like that among non top level players isn't it?   The best pro men can beat the best pro women most of the time.  That's why a dude on hormones shouldn't even want to compete with women.  

[52-80 19246]

2 hours ago, troph said:

 I’ve gotten creamed by women on the court

braggart

 

and if it hasnt been said before, nobody listens to the joe rogan show because they want to listen to joe rogan.  they listen to it because he brings all the guests.  i do hear him push back on his guests from time to time.  but hes not trying to be a shock jock so thats not his m.o. god knows theres enough of that nonsense on the web

[ztejas 43537]

2 hours ago, troph said:

Neither one of them are experts on that topic.

I don't think you need to be an expert to understand the topic or have an opinion about it.  It's just a matter of being informed or not (and Rogan clearly is - part of his job is studying a professional sport for both men and women). 

2 hours ago, troph said:

And my own personal experience - I was an average to above average athlete when I was younger and now I’m an average to above average athlete now that I’m older. Funny how that turned out. No magical advantage gained. And while I’m probably considered a power tennis player I’ve gotten creamed by women on the court that tooled me around and had just as much or more power than me. My record is slightly above .500 right now. And compared to men? My 15 year old still has peach fuzz on his face and he smokes me with his top spin forehand. I can’t hit as heavy of a ball as he can and he’s not even a man yet.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at - but conflating the argument with amateur experiences doesn't really add anything. They're talking about world class athletes on both sides in the video. 

I've never played a game of tennis in my life, so Serena Williams would probably kick my ass. 

[troph 24906]

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at - but conflating the argument with amateur experiences doesn't really add anything. They're talking about world class athletes on both sides in the video.  I've never played a game of tennis in my life, so Serena Williams would probably kick my ass.  

 

My point about my experience is that transition doesn’t magically transform you into an elite athlete, you don’t level up automatically. If an athlete is elite she was elite to begin with, kind of like Serena. Transition, being trans, isn’t what gives them their ability to compete at a high level. If it was, I’d likely be doing much better. And Rogan doesn’t talk about pros he talks about all athletes but uses outlier cherry picked singular examples to apply to the whole. He’s using false logic. His prime example - Fallon Fox went 5-1 and did lose to another woman. In his world, any trans woman that competes and wins at a high level should be DQ’d because of her past. There is no recognition for dedication, training, determination, ability irrespective of gender. Nor is there any openness to understand why organizations with real vested interests have settled this and allowed competition. Serena is allowed to crush her competition but if a trans woman does she’s DQ’d. Look up trans athletes who are professionals and you will see so few - if any - that could even be case studies to attempt to prove Rogan’s hypothesis. And if any one of them in reality wins it’s a de facto problem. He employs the classic “I’m not a racist but ...” approach and uses “it just feels right” intuition to reach scientific conclusions. He uses one outlier athlete and uses the mere fact that she is trans to build an argument about all trans athletes - and his argument against her doesn’t even hold any water. Then people out there like one guy above starts spewing real shit like “I don’t even know why a dude on hormones would even want to compete with women” - then it happens - he has empowered idiots to discriminate.  

 

Folks love to bat this around and espouse their opinions but uninformed opinions hurt people.

[Cajun 11740]

On 8/17/2020 at 1:04 AM, PRONG HORN said:

 

Listen to him discuss with the "Adam Ruins Everything" guy.  Rogans no dummy.  He's probably smarter than 75% of posters here at least.  

 

 

That was like watching a goat wander into a meat processing plant.  All full of hope, wonder, curiosity, and few minutes later what was once a goat is now a package of dog treats.

LMAO

Edited August 18, 2020 by Cajun

[ztejas 43537]

3 hours ago, troph said:

My point about my experience is that transition doesn’t magically transform you into an elite athlete, you don’t level up automatically. If an athlete is elite she was elite to begin with, kind of like Serena. Transition, being trans, isn’t what gives them their ability to compete at a high level. If it was, I’d likely be doing much better. And Rogan doesn’t talk about pros he talks about all athletes but uses outlier cherry picked singular examples to apply to the whole. He’s using false logic. His prime example - Fallon Fox went 5-1 and did lose to another woman. In his world, any trans woman that competes and wins at a high level should be DQ’d because of her past. There is no recognition for dedication, training, determination, ability irrespective of gender. Nor is there any openness to understand why organizations with real vested interests have settled this and allowed competition. Serena is allowed to crush her competition but if a trans woman does she’s DQ’d. Look up trans athletes who are professionals and you will see so few - if any - that could even be case studies to attempt to prove Rogan’s hypothesis. And if any one of them in reality wins it’s a de facto problem. He employs the classic “I’m not a racist but ...” approach and uses “it just feels right” intuition to reach scientific conclusions. He uses one outlier athlete and uses the mere fact that she is trans to build an argument about all trans athletes - and his argument against her doesn’t even hold any water. Then people out there like one guy above starts spewing real shit like “I don’t even know why a dude on hormones would even want to compete with women” - then it happens - he has empowered idiots to discriminate.  

 

Folks love to bat this around and espouse their opinions but uninformed opinions hurt people.

I mean look, we obviously disagree here. I respect your stance as well as your decision to identify as what you choose and do with your body what you want. I don't think it's fair for biological males to compete against women at a professional level where careers are on the line. 

I think its an interesting case study of women's rights vs. trans rights and I don't want to run away from the argument, but I also don't want to CR this thread. I'm not going to change your stance and you aren't going to change mine.

Also... are you using a rep sock? We're all adults here. No one is going to neg you.

Edited August 18, 2020 by ztejas

[troph 24906]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

I mean look, we obviously disagree here. I respect your stance as well as your decision to identify as what you choose and do with your body what you want. I don't think it's fair for biological males to compete against women at a professional level where careers are on the line. 

I think its an interesting case study of women's rights vs. trans rights and I don't want to run away from the argument, but I also don't want to CR this thread. I'm not going to change your stance and you aren't going to change mine.

Also... are you using a rep sock? We're all adults here. No one is going to neg you.

I don't have time to care about rep.  I don't have a sock, never had one, never will, and any IP check will confirm that (I've been checked on that before). And for the record I'm not here to change your mind, I've been accused of being a lot of things but foolish has never been one of them.  I'm here for anyone lurking who succumbs to the "yeah that makes sense" argument and then believes it.  I wouldn't expect to change Rogan's mind either.  He's got it made up, and it doesn't harm him or anyone he really cares about to be cavalier about the issue either.  That's what makes him a hack.  At best the science is unclear, at best. That's a fact (you know because science) regardless of what Rogan says or what any dude thinks makes sense.   At worse there's a shit ton of damage being done to people because, I dunno, it seems correct.

Edited August 18, 2020 by troph

[ztejas 43537]

27 minutes ago, troph said:

I don't have time to care about rep.  I don't have a sock, never had one, never will, and any IP check will confirm that (I've been checked on that before). And for the record I'm not here to change your mind, I've been accused of being a lot of things but foolish has never been one of them.  I'm here for anyone lurking who succumbs to the "yeah that makes sense" argument and then believes it.  I wouldn't expect to change Rogan's mind either.  He's got it made up, and it doesn't harm him or anyone he really cares about to be cavalier about the issue either.  That's what makes him a hack.  At best the science is unclear, at best. That's a fact (you know because science) regardless of what Rogan says or what any dude thinks makes sense.   At worse there's a shit ton of damage being done to people because, I dunno, it seems correct.

Wasn't trying to accuse you. Just saw someone rep you that has never posted here. Seemed strange. You didn't seem like the type anyway.

[Voodoo 3]

24 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Wasn't trying to accuse you. Just saw someone rep you that has never posted here. Seemed strange. You didn't seem like the type anyway.

Sorry that's my fault. I usually just browse and sometimes like a post I see. Usually I never have anything to add to the conversation so I stay silent. Again apologies.

[troph 24906]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

That’s not at all what Rogan said. He was employing extremely common sense arguing with a moron. A trans woman should be DQ’ed. And Adam was the guy that used the “I’m not a racist” and “it just feels right” approaches. Shocking you got any pos rep out of this garbage post. 

you don't know shit.  you haven't spent 5 minutes really considering the topic and all you've done is spew opinion and you yourself rely on "common sense" not science.  back your shit up.  the science AT BEST is unclear.  that's a fact.    

Edited August 18, 2020 by troph

[troph 24906]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

No, I don’t really care to exert any effort backing up a common sense opinion that I really don’t care about. The burden of proof is on you. Convince me. 

thanks for being transparent about your flippant approach and lack of care or concern.  Too bad organizations like the IOC and NCAA (and the tennis organizations too) have already decided, but thankfully they probably spent more than 5 minutes considering.  Looks like the burden really isn't on me.  Sorry charlie.

Edited August 18, 2020 by troph

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

1 hour ago, Voodoo said:

Sorry that's my fault. I usually just browse and sometimes like a post I see. Usually I never have anything to add to the conversation so I stay silent. Again apologies.

Smartest poster on the board imo.

[troph 24906]

It is on you; you’re the minority trying to exploit a relatively new thing. You tell me why I should adjust my playing fields because of your very small fringey group. 

You can call my approach flippant all you want but the fact of the matter is, you don’t know how much reading on this I’ve done. Regardless, I’m not going to argue common sense. Rather, you need to tell me why a trans Rafa Nadal ought to be able to dominate Serena. Or whatever hypothetical you want. I’ll read and even keep an open mind. I doubt you change it, but you can try. 

The only people I care about in this context are the ladies getting dominated by men. I don’t have any empathy for your ilk with respect to sports with ladies. 

if nadal went through five years of transition and had female range hormones then yes Serena might beat [her] head to head.  you have no idea what you're talking about.  Your very question assumes in a really bad way that all Nadal would do is dawn a cute tennis skirt and while that may make the gay boys (at least some) a bit more hot and bothered it doesn't make him trans.  and this idea that cisgender women athletes are getting dominated by trans women doesn't show up in the facts.  There are a few top notch trans athletes but by and large the domination you and Rogan claim isn’t there. it's just not there.  you care about it, but it's not happening.  your common sense approach is dripping with misinformation and a lack of knowledge on the subject.  it really is.  

and your empathy?  the first time I need it from you I'll ask.  

Edited August 18, 2020 by troph

[troph 24906]

1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

No no no no no never never never no never. Rafa would smoke Serena like a pack of Marlboros. 

because you know how transition would affect Nadal's body.  because you have common sense.  because Rogan said so.  gotcha.

[CooterBrown 18029]

26 minutes ago, troph said:

There are a few top notch trans athletes but by and large the domination you and Rogan claim isn’t there. it's just not there.  you care about it, but it's not happening.  your common sense approach is dripping with misinformation and a lack of knowledge on the subject.  it really is.  

and your empathy?  the first time I need it from you I'll ask.  

I think the issue most people have is that it's easy for an average male to dominate female sports at the lowest levels.   

Look at track, it's easy to compare performances since 100 meters is 100 meters.  The women's 100m world record is 10.49.  That time doesn't even make the all-time top 1,000 US high school boys list.  It's like that in every event that you can compare apples to apples. The world record for women is a good, not great, teen boy performance.

Granted, the scenario is so rare, it's probably not worth worrying about. But, if it's your kid getting destroyed by an athlete who, due to being male at birth, has a physiological advantage in body type  and what is effectively 10+ plus years of testosterone doping, you may take issue with it.

 

 

[troph 24906]

44 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I think the issue most people have is that it's easy for an average male to dominate female sports at the lowest levels.   

Look at track, it's easy to compare performances since 100 meters is 100 meters.  The women's 100m world record is 10.49.  That time doesn't even make the all-time top 1,000 US high school boys list.  It's like that in every event that you can compare apples to apples. The world record for women is a good, not great, teen boy performance.

Granted, the scenario is so rare, it's probably not worth worrying about. But, if it's your kid getting destroyed by an athlete who, due to being male at birth, has a physiological advantage in body type  and what is effectively 10+ plus years of testosterone doping, you may take issue with it.

 

 

that's not happening though.  and under the Rogan hypothesis there is no way a trans woman can be a winner without it being attributed to her past - sorry but that's all kinds of fucked up misogyny.  doesn't matter what the NCAA says, or what the IOC says, or USTA or WTA or anyone.  and under his hypothesis it's happening all the time, and the continued threat of it is so great we have to deal with it now.

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

You presume I don’t understand what would happen to his body. I do. Explain how, exactly, that will alter his training and natural strength. 

he could easily lose 25-35% of this strength, maybe more.  I bet I can't bench 100 pounds maybe not even 85 pounds and I'm in great shape (I have a hard time with reps with 20 lb dumbells).  He would have no less than a 12-18 month recovery process from surgery after several years of losing muscle mass in a slow decline.  He would have to start completely over on performance training and he would not have the same endurance, he would not have the same stamina, he might have issues with fatigue, hell he might have issues with depression, anxiety and other issues that come with transition due to the shit he'd endure.  As for his training, that's not testosterone, that's work ethic, coaching, focus and dedication and if you really want to sit here and claim male superiority on training well, I don't know what to tell you. That's bullshit.

and just comparing serve power as a proxy - she's at 128 mph max serve, he's at 136 mph.  There's no way he holds a drastic competitive advantage over her in the power department after 5 years of transition including 12-18 months off from tennis to transition physically.

Edited August 18, 2020 by troph

[ztejas 43537]

39 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I think the issue most people have is that it's easy for an average male to dominate female sports at the lowest levels.   

This is kind of where it begins and ends for me. It's like in the Incredibles when Dash is telling his mom "I'll only be the best by a tiny bit!". It's not zero-sum where unless a trans-woman is dominating it's fair. If they are winning at all it's unfair because it's easier for them. 

Also analogous to Oscar Pistorius. 

Troph is bringing up some interesting points or ideas that I enjoy reading, though. It is a complicated issue, but like I said upthread the main issue is an infringement upon women's rights. Like the stand-up bit about Caitlyn Jenner winning "woman of the year" (ironically that might be a Rogan bit).

[troph 24906]

and since we are talking about tennis, how about some analytics from the New York Times on men's and women's results in the top echelon of tennis:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/sports/tennis-equality.html

 

U.S. Open Match Metrics

At the United States Open over the past three years, covering 127 men’s and women’s singles matches each year, there is undeniable equality in three big analytical markers: baseline points won, net points won, and serve-and-volley points won.

The only category in which there is a more than 1 percent difference between men and women was in serve-and-volley points won in 2015, when men won at a 68 percent clip and the women were at 59 percent. But in the past two years, those numbers were nearly even.

Serve Speed

At the 2015 Open, Serena Williams hit a 126-miles-per-hour serve. That was 1 m.p.h. faster than the fastest serve from the men’s champion, Novak Djokovic.

 

This is not new on the women’s tour. At Wimbledon in 2008, Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer in one of the best men’s finals ever. On the women’s side in 2008, Venus Williams defeated her sister Serena in another outstanding final.

The fastest serve in the men’s final: 129 m.p.h. by Federer. The fastest serve in the women’s final: 129 m.p.h. by Venus.

In the 2018 Cincinnati Masters 1000 final last week, Djokovic defeated Federer, 6-4, 6-4. Djokovic’s fastest serve was 122 m.p.h., and Federer topped out at 127 m.p.h., still under what Venus hit at Wimbledon 10 years ago.

Yes, there are more men who can put more heat on their serve, but the leading women can hold their own.

Groundstrokes and Rally Length

Two knocks on women’s tennis that typically go hand in hand are that it is a backhand-dominated game, and that the rallies are a lot longer — bordering on boring.

Neither assumption is true.

Men and women hit far more winners on their forehand, and the percentage of backhand winners is in the same ballpark: 30.2 percent for men and 35.7 percent for women.

Long rallies in tennis are defined as nine shots or longer. At last year’s Open, rallies of at least nine shots accounted for 12.2 percent of the points in women’s matches, compared with 11 percent for men.

[troph 24906]

12 minutes ago, ztejas said:

This is kind of where it begins and ends for me. It's like in the Incredibles when Dash is telling his mom "I'll only be the best by a tiny bit!". It's not zero-sum where unless a trans-woman is dominating it's fair. If they are winning at all it's unfair because it's easier for them. 

 

that's totally messed up.  you start with the assumption a trans woman wins because she used to be a man, full stop, period. end of analysis.  ergo if she wins even a point it's unfair.  that's beyond bullshit.    and by the way, men are not incredibles compared to women athletes, that's an exaggeration that helps you bolster your assumption that then leads to your conclusion.

[ztejas 43537]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

and since we are talking about tennis, how about some analytics from the New York Times on men's and women's results in the top echelon of tennis:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/sports/tennis-equality.html

 

 

 

Serve speeds being close doesn't really prove anything, unfortunately (but it's interesting, I wouldn't have guessed that).

Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]

But the main issue isn't in sports like golf and tennis where men and women professionals can be much closer. It's in contests like weightlifting or combat sports. And something like basketball where the male physiology offers marked advantages in literally every facet of the game would probably be completely off the table. 

[Guest Lobo]

Anybody else thinking of that scene in "Top Secret"...

"Who do you favor in the upcoming Virginia Slims Tournament?"  

[ztejas 43537]

13 minutes ago, troph said:

you start with the assumption a trans woman wins because she used to be a man, full stop, period. end of analysis.

That's not what I said - and I was speaking in generalities. I'm saying that because she used to be a man there are ways in which it could be much easier for her to succeed. Just like Oscar Pistorious enjoyed a mechanical advantage when competing in the Olympics. Whether it is or isn't easier in one specific circumstance is irrelevant - especially if you are looking at examples across multiple sports where men might enjoy more or less of an advantage (or a disadvantage).

13 minutes ago, troph said:

and by the way, men are not incredibles compared to women athletes, that's an exaggeration that helps you bolster your assumption that then leads to your conclusion.

It wasn't an exaggeration it was an analogy meant to highlight potential issues that could arise with trans women trying to "fly under the radar" - effectively mimicking Dash's attitude/motivation in that scene.

Edited August 18, 2020 by ztejas
word choice

[Helobious 9464]

4 hours ago, ztejas said:

Wasn't trying to accuse you. Just saw someone rep you that has never posted here. Seemed strange. You didn't seem like the type anyway.

Sorry, pet peeve triggeration. “I wasn’t trying to accuse you, even though I just accused you.” If it didn’t matter you wouldn’t call attention to it. Fucking jesus I hate when people act like that. 
 

Is this the shit on Pistorious thread? Dude got fucking bionic legs put on and he was made out to be some heroic underdog. Always hated that guy. No surprise he’s a piece of shit human as well. 

[Nivek 16986]

10 hours ago, troph said:

My point about my experience is that transition doesn’t magically transform you into an elite athlete, you don’t level up automatically. If an athlete is elite she was elite to begin with, kind of like Serena. Transition, being trans, isn’t what gives them their ability to compete at a high level. If it was, I’d likely be doing much better. And Rogan doesn’t talk about pros he talks about all athletes but uses outlier cherry picked singular examples to apply to the whole. He’s using false logic. His prime example - Fallon Fox went 5-1 and did lose to another woman. In his world, any trans woman that competes and wins at a high level should be DQ’d because of her past. There is no recognition for dedication, training, determination, ability irrespective of gender. Nor is there any openness to understand why organizations with real vested interests have settled this and allowed competition. Serena is allowed to crush her competition but if a trans woman does she’s DQ’d. 

Then people out there like one guy above starts spewing real shit like “I don’t even know why a dude on hormones would even want to compete with women” - then it happens - he has empowered idiots to discriminate.  

 

Folks love to bat this around and espouse their opinions but uninformed opinions hurt people.

I guess the difficulty lies in the ability to quantify the level of training for each athlete in question before a comparison could be made.    Are there studies which discuss muscle mass for before and after surgery/treatments for individuals and in comparison with their genetic gender counterparts?