BetVictor Scottish Open 2021

[PatBlock]

She´s actually on the tour, so no need to complain this time. But as usual there were withdrawls the day before the tournament started. Ironically from Williams and Robertson who agreed with Murphy, but now they let amateurs in.. LOL

That's very amusing.

-

[Odrl]

Why is this held in Wales btw? That just seems bizarre.

[PatBlock]

Another amateur trying to prevent Sean from "putting food on the table" And it's a woman!!!! She must really have no pressure on her. I still can't believe that the idiot said that.

Murphy's the one under pressure now, 3 - 1 down.

-

[PatBlock]

Why is this held in Wales btw? That just seems bizarre.

Probably a Covid related decision.

-

[fkhan]

Common On Yee!

[Stony152]

Has there ever been a match before where one player weighed three times as much as his/her opponent? 😁

[Stony152]

She´s actually on the tour, so no need to complain this time. But as usual there were withdrawls the day before the tournament started. Ironically from Williams and Robertson who agreed with Murphy, but now they let amateurs in.. LOL

She's on the tour by the stroke of a pen. She's an inferior player to the two "amateurs" that Murphy and Selby lost to.

Reminds me of about five years ago when I postulated that Reanne Evans could be a top 32 player if given the chance. Looking back now, that was a rather foolish statement. Both of the women are decent enough, but just inside the world top 150 at best. They just aren't break builders at the level of the best men or even mediocre tour players. Not sure why. Strength really isn't that much of a factor.

[Rane]

She's on the tour by the stroke of a pen. She's an inferior player to the two "amateurs" that Murphy and Selby lost to.

Reminds me of about five years ago when I postulated that Reanne Evans could be a top 32 player if given the chance. Looking back now, that was a rather foolish statement. Both of the women are decent enough, but just inside the world top 150 at best. They just aren't break builders at the level of the best men or even mediocre tour players. Not sure why. Strength really isn't that much of a factor.

As much a stroke of the pen as Hendry. Don´t get me wrong I like that White and Hendry are offered wild cards but they havent really anything to come with any longer.

[PatBlock]

They just aren't break builders at the level of the best men or even mediocre tour players. Not sure why. Strength really isn't that much of a factor.

I don't think it's really about strength, although when it comes to some of the power shots occasionally needed, I think it plays a part, it's mostly about tens of thousands of years of evolution, men hunted, threw stones, spears etc, women didn't, so men developed better at that type of hand eye coordination stuff.

-

[Stony152]

As much a stroke of the pen as Hendry. Don´t get me wrong I like that White and Hendry are offered wild cards but they havent really anything to come with any longer.

I'm kind of ambivalent to the Hendry and White wild cards. What I really hate is in theory having a top 64 get a card and then ending up with fields of 128 players. Have the top 64 of the two year official rankings. Add 8-16 for the best that year not already qualified, add 8-16from Q-school. and then add another 8-16 from various sources like top amateur, top junior, top Asian tour player, etc. to get to 96. And THAT'S IT. Nobody else can appear in a tour event other than qualifying for the world championships. Players ranked 33-96 would play QR1 and the 32 winners would join seeds 1-32 in a proper R1 with 64 players.

If players pull out you just have a walkover. It really isn't that big of a deal. When it happens in tennis nobody cries about it.

[Stony152]

I don't think it's really about strength, although when it comes to some of the power shots occasionally needed, I think it plays a part, it's mostly about tens of thousands of years of evolution, men hunted, threw stones, spears etc, women didn't, so men developed better at that type of hand eye coordination stuff.

-

Agree completely. And add the fact that the pool to choose from is just so much larger because more boys play snooker and darts. When you have tens of thousands starting out the chances of ending up with someone very good are much better than if you start out with a few hundred.

It's like Canada in hockey. Every young kid plays hockey. So from those millions you end up with a few very elite players. Or other countries with football. Same thing. Canada could send two Olympic ice hockey teams and have a decent chance to win two medals.

[Stony152]

I think strength is a small factor in having a smooth and dynamic cue action. Watching Murphy and Ng there is a huge difference in their cue action. Hers is almost plodding in comparison to his. There is no way she could ever put as much spin on the ball as he can. It's mostly hand to eye coordination, but being strong helps to some extent for certain types of shots.

[PatBlock]

I think strength is a small factor in having a smooth and dynamic cue action. Watching Murphy and Ng there is a huge difference in their cue action. Hers is almost plodding in comparison to his. There is no way she could ever put as much spin on the ball as he can. It's mostly hand to eye coordination, but being strong helps to some extent for certain types of shots.

Absolutely, subtlety requires it's own particular kind of strength.

-

[Zelig]

Whoops, what did I start... well, let me feed it. There is good scientific evidence suggesting that women are better than men at shooting with weapons. Some armies already knew it, and exploited it, during the past century's wars. This evidence -- that many statisticians consider an established fact -- counteracts substantially (though it does not fully contradict) the eye-hand story.

The idea that a single snooker shot requires physical strength sounds really really odd to me, I cannot imagine a shot that men can take but women cannot, and especially on the superfast tables used nowadays! The only physical characteristic I once thought about is average height (which could matter, given the size of the table), but there's plenty of counter-examples of short top players, I don't know. I think snooker is more about resistance than physical strength on the single shot.

I tend to think that it's more a matter of sample size (if the same number of women and men played snooker, how many female elite players would we have...), which brings us to the final summary of all these discussions: nature or nurture? In this respect, my favourite answer to all such discussions is a movie:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/

[PatBlock]

The idea that a single snooker shot requires physical strength sounds really really odd to me, I cannot imagine a shot that men can take but women cannot, and especially on the superfast tables used nowadays!

The cue must be delivered incredibly straight and true, any slight deviation is magnified and the projectile will miss it's intended mark, just as with a spear, strength is useless without accuracy. This is so subtle, but men have been doing it for many thousands of years.

I tend to think that it's more a matter of sample size (if the same number of women and men played snooker, how many female elite players would we have...), which brings us to the final summary of all these discussions: nature or nurture? In this respect, my favourite answer to all such discussions is a movie:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/

Personally I think nature plays the stronger part, giving or not giving the predispositions needed for nurture to then develop. If you don't have wings, no amount of nurturing will help you to fly.


-