Jim Henley savages the WNBA:
For the record, I tried to be a WNBA fan its first two or three years. Eventually I couldn’t deny that I was watching a lot of bad basketball for my trouble. That saw about how the women’s game is purer “fundamental basketball” in terms of basic skills and teamwork? Twaddle. At least when I stopped watching, the league lacked three point guards who could really handle the ball. Beyond point guards, players would muff basic ball-handling challenges. Catching the simplest entry pass was an adventure in uncertainty. I’m not just talking the famously bad early Mystics teams either, but all the various teams I saw on TB. Even Houston Comets games were like watching a one-legged contestant winning a sack race for paraplegics.
Comparing things like ball-handling skills isn't an exact science, so there can be debate about the difference between men's and women's sports. But when you look at sports that are measured in objective terms the differences become apparant. Here are the results from the 2000 Sydney Olympics women's track and field, including these winning times and distances. After the women's time I've put the Colorado Boy's 2004 winning results (from CHSAA) for comparison.
100 Meters 10.75 - 10.54
200 meters 21.64 - 21.18
400 meters 49.11 - 48.19
800 meters 1:56.15 - 1:53.13
High Jump 2.01 m - 2.03 m
Long Jump 6.99 m - 6.82 m
So we see that a small state like Colorado has high school boys who can beat world class women track and field athletes. So the question is, why do we watch one competition but ignore the other? It's clearly not for the skill level. Have you ever watched the Little League World Series on television? Millions do, and find it fascinating. But the skill level of twelve year olds is obviously not near that of mid-level adult players. But not many turn out to see a local amateur club play.
I'm in the sports business and I can't fully explain why people watch what they do. For the spectator it's a mixture of empathy and awe that attracts our attention, and skill level is part of the equation, but not the full story.
My best theory is we'll watch lower level sports when skill level isn't easily discernable, but the stakes of the competition are relatively high. The Olympic Games are high stakes contests, where the winners can become celebrities. Women's golf and tennis are popular, too, perhaps because only a few experienced spectators can see any difference between them and the men's version. Until they compete side by side, that is.
Posted by Walter at April 16, 2005 01:17 PM