Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:52 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

I've always long held the opinion that a top glass female golfer could certainly hold her own in the male rankings as despite opinions to the contrary its not all about brute force and hitting the ball as hard and as long as you can, but about accuracy, even I, on an exceptionally good day (like once in a lifetime) can make the green of a par five in three (stop laughing at the back) - a 200 yard drive that sticks to the middle of the fairway trumps anyone's 350 yard drive that ends up in the stands, and how many times have you seen Tiger Woods put a ball into the stands (me, once, live, just behind my head).

Its all about opportunity and while so ever the golf clubs, even the new free-er thinking clubs, treat their women members as a bit of a novelty or a chore to have to accompany on a Sunday afternoon, then the pro women game will be in the shadows.

Golf is played in long pants and any fool knows you can't play sport in long pants. So golf, cricket, motor racing and horse racing should all be excluded on that simple fact alone

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:55 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Golf is played in long pants and any fool knows you can't play sport in long pants. So golf, cricket, motor racing and horse racing should all be excluded on that simple fact alone

Swimming and 100/200m running?

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:57 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

So golf, cricket, motor racing and horse racing should all be excluded on that simple fact alone

I'd semi agree with your first 3 examples mate but you won't get many braver than last years worthy winner.

Look up his list of serious injuries.
You'll still be reading them tomorrow morning.

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:14 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

Swimming and 100/200m running?

In long pants?

I'm talking about pants here, or trousers if you must, not Lycra cossies

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:22 pm  

In fact I will add another caveat here.

Any "sport" that does not produce a clear winner by being fastest, hardest or longest or whatever but relies on a panel of judges to "score" the opponents should also be excluded from using the term "sport". Any winner should be chosen by purely objective means and not subject to the whims and dalliances of any "judge". I realise that means that boxing would be excluded from the Olympics but unless they're willing to fight until there is a clear winner, then it's not a sport. But it would mean that we get shut of those formation drowning women, those others that twirl cnady-floss ribbons and synchronised diving

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:29 pm  

The thing with Synchronised diving is surely you could develop some sort of laser mapping to see who is the most synchronised.

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:06 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Golf is played in long pants and any fool knows you can't play sport in long pants. So golf, cricket, motor racing and horse racing should all be excluded on that simple fact alone

Women golfers usually play in shorts, so they are clearly playing the more genuine version of the sport.

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:04 am  

As I understand it, the award used to be called Sportsman of the Year, the term personality was introduced to cover both genders, not because it reflected personality.

But who cares. The programme is a joke these days, it is more about so-called celebrities. I bet unfunny-man James Corden gets more airtime than Rugby League.

It's like Question of Sport, no longer a quiz about sporting knowledge, but a couple of luvvies trying to outshout each other. I watched the last couple of episodes because Sean Long and Sam Tomkins were on, but they needn't have wasted their time.

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:01 pm  

Marcus Notsquare wrote:

As I understand it, the award used to be called Sportsman of the Year, the term personality was introduced to cover both genders, not because it reflected personality.

But who cares. The programme is a joke these days, it is more about so-called celebrities. I bet unfunny-man James Corden gets more airtime than Rugby League.

It's like Question of Sport, no longer a quiz about sporting knowledge, but a couple of luvvies trying to outshout each other. I watched the last couple of episodes because Sean Long and Sam Tomkins were on, but they needn't have wasted their time.

Spot on. All of it

Re: Female sports, are they taken seriously by the media ? : Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:14 pm  

Marcus Notsquare wrote:

It's like Question of Sport, no longer a quiz about sporting knowledge, but a couple of luvvies trying to outshout each other.

That should've been renamed "We've found something for Sue Barker to do in between Wimbledon and the ATP Masters"