Where are the Ladies in professional Snooker?

[vmax4steve]

Couple of years ago European Pool Championships were held close to where I live. I don't know if you've heard of Jasmin Ouschan, a cute Austrian blonde who plays pool to an extremely high level. She plays to about Allison's level, but breaks the balls as hard as top men, no joke. This has to be seen to be believed. Like Allison and most good woman billiard players, she prefers women. In one of the finals disciplines she played against her former girlfriend, while in other discipline she played finals against another cute Austrian girl who was in a relationship with Allison Fisher some years ago... Imagine a testosterone filled crowd watching those two girls play...you cannot help having dirty thoughts...

Nothing dirty about it at all m8 as the only thing more beautiful than a woman is "two women".
Going back again to this "lady" lesbian dart player that I played against all those years ago, she was known to also go with men and had a son as a result, had a girlfriend at the time who was absolutely gorgeous and had a huge crush on teen pop idol David Cassidy. Talk about human sexuality being complex.

nrage

to save ourselves a lot of time and trouble, let's agree to disagree about everything alright !

[nrage]

nrage

to save ourselves a lot of time and trouble, let's agree to disagree about everything alright !

We can, at least, agree that snooker is <insert favourite slang for cool>

[PatBlock]

But, snooker is not about gross motor skills, but instead about 'fine' motor co-ordination....

You sure about that nrage?

I'd say that the ability to consistently pot balls while maintaining position, often requires extremely accurate delivery of power. Although it needs to be very precise, the action itself is not unlike throwing a punch, or a spear, and I'd definitely put it in the 'gross motor skills' category. The article you posted actually gave "throwing objects (Fisher, 1992)" as an example of such. It then refers to women "manipulating tiny objects with ease", I wouldn't call a snooker cue a 'tiny object'

As for the spatial awareness bit, I don't see the connection. When you're cueing, the entire universe shrinks and your concentration is focused entirely on the shot, that's a precise single objective, followed by a focused release of power, the sort of thing that men are naturally good at.

One of the sports where women compete equally with men (as far as I'm aware), is shooting. This is clearly a 'fine motor' activity, delicate sensitivity is needed for breathing, steadiness, and the eventual trigger pull itself.

It's a complex question, and of course there is no single answer, but it's a fact that men have been throwing punches, spears, rocks, and anything else they can get their hands on, in order to survive for the last 30-40 thousand years, so generally speaking, they've become naturally more adept at such things.

-

[nrage]

You sure about that nrage?

No, like I said I'm no expert and I welcome any/all evidence to the contrary

I'd say that the ability to consistently pot balls while maintaining position, often requires extremely accurate delivery of power. Although it needs to be very precise, the action itself is not unlike throwing a punch, or a spear, and I'd definitely put it in the 'gross motor skills' category. The article you posted actually gave "throwing objects (Fisher, 1992)" as an example of such. It then refers to women "manipulating tiny objects with ease", I wouldn't call a snooker cue a 'tiny object'

The article does say "throwing objects" but immediately prior it says "speed and force", so I took that to mean those aspects of throwing an object. i.e. throwing a spear further and harder but not necessarily more accurately. At the same time, I think we'd all agree that in general men are better at throwing things. Some of that is, I believe, nurture, and some nature i.e. women having less inclination to practice throwing things, but some of it is strength. To throw something (heavy) accurately you need to have sufficient strength to handle the object with ease, otherwise that will negatively affect your accuracy. So in the case of throwing a heavy spear over a distance of 30+ yards strength plays a part in accuracy. Also, the sort of accuracy we're talking about with spear throwing is hitting a large (compared to a snooker ball) target, like the side of deer, or rather a ~1ft circular area where the deer is vulnerable.

So, I'd argue that playing a shot in snooker is not quite the same as throwing a spear. The strength required to move a cue 1ft, even for a 'hard' shot is much lower, and well below that of your average a woman or even older child, so there should be no negative impact to accuracy due to strength. Also, the level of accuracy required is much higher, within mm, not cm/feet. Basically, I'm not sure the comparison holds well enough to be a fair measure.

One of the sports where women compete equally with men (as far as I'm aware), is shooting. This is clearly a 'fine motor' activity, delicate sensitivity is needed for breathing, steadiness, and the eventual trigger pull itself.

Interesting, do you know if the same is true of archery. I suspect there is a strength component of archery which allows men to be more accurate with bows which have a heavier pull strength - for the reason I mentioned above that not having the requisite strength with affect accuracy. But with crossbows or light bows I would expect women to be as accurate as men.

It's a complex question, and of course there is no single answer, but it's a fact that men have been throwing punches, spears, rocks, and anything else they can get their hands on, in order to survive for the last 30-40 thousand years, so generally speaking, they've become naturally more adept at such things.

Yeah, the only question to my mind is whether snooker falls into the category of things men have evolved to do, those that women have evolved to do, or (more likely) a bit of both such that the balance of ability due to nature leans one way, the other, or balances out evenly. As you say, it's complex, and we probably can't measure it - due to the social/nurture factors, so the best we can do is guess .. and my guess is that natural ability for snooker is fairly balanced between the sexes.

But, like I mentioned earlier, I don't think natural ability plays as large a part as social/nurture factors like the desire to actually play snooker, and the access to good facilities, coaches, and the sort of environment needed to build the skills required to play to a high standard.

[PatBlock]

The article does say "throwing objects" but immediately prior it says "speed and force", so I took that to mean those aspects of throwing an object. i.e. throwing a spear further and harder but not necessarily more accurately.

What use would that be? You'd miss the target, you and yours would die of starvation, and your genes would not be passed on. The point is that men are good at power + accuracy, which although on a smaller scale, are still the basic requirements of a top snooker player.

At the same time, I think we'd all agree that in general men are better at throwing things. Some of that is, I believe, nurture, and some nature i.e. women having less inclination to practice throwing things, but some of it is strength.

The recreational side of this ability is a relatively recent thing, for 30,000 years or so, there was no choice in the matter, men hunted, and women didn't. So over something like 2,000 generations, natural selection has finely honed the skillset needed in men, and also the desire to acquire that skillset, while during this time women were developing entirely different skills. So I'd give nature the upper hand here over nurture.

It's also worth mentioning that social evolutionary change happens at a much faster rate than its physical counterpart, (a fact which I believe has a significant bearing on why our modern society is so messed up right now, but that's another topic) so even when given the inclination, time and opportunity to practice, etc, etc, the best male player will almost always beat the best female player, because of the overriding physical advantage gained over tens of thousands of years of natural selection for/of that skillset.

So in the case of throwing a heavy spear over a distance of 30+ yards strength plays a part in accuracy. Also, the sort of accuracy we're talking about with spear throwing is hitting a large (compared to a snooker ball) target, like the side of deer, or rather a ~1ft circular area where the deer is vulnerable.....

...Also, the level of accuracy required is much higher, within mm, not cm/feet.

But the spear throw is over a much greater distance.
Given that men frequently hit distances of 80-90+ meters in the javelin, I reckon that an expert hunter could bring down a deer at a distance of 40+ yards. To hit a (possibly moving) target area of a foot diameter at such distances with a spear requires incredible balance, accuracy, and power, easily equal to that required to playing snooker IMO.

So, I'd argue that playing a shot in snooker is not quite the same as throwing a spear...

...Basically, I'm not sure the comparison holds well enough to be a fair measure.

You're right, of course they're not the same, but I think it's a good enough comparison, and to me it seems clear that the skillsets required are very similar. It's certainly a lot more closely related to hunting, than it is to any activities carried out by women over the last 20-30 thousand years.

The strength required to move a cue 1ft, even for a 'hard' shot is much lower, and well below that of your average a woman or even older child, so there should be no negative impact to accuracy due to strength.

Ah, but there is. Everyone knows that the harder you play a shot, the more inaccurate you cueing becomes. So the inverse of this means that if you are able to play with a lot of power while maintaining accuracy, then your accuracy at lower power levels is also greater.
I think in snooker, just as in other sports, it helps to be stronger and fitter than your opponent.

Take two players, player A is extremely accurate but lacks the ability to deliver that accuracy with power. Player B is equally accurate, but can also deliver that accuracy with power when needed. Which of the two would you put your hard earned cash on?

Interesting, do you know if the same is true of archery. I suspect there is a strength component of archery which allows men to be more accurate with bows which have a heavier pull strength - for the reason I mentioned above that not having the requisite strength with affect accuracy. But with crossbows or light bows I would expect women to be as accurate as men.

I'd agree with that.

I don't think natural ability plays as large a part as social/nurture factors

But definitely not with that, as you may have guessed.

-

[nrage]

What use would that be? You'd miss the target, you and yours would die of starvation, and your genes would not be passed on. The point is that men are good at power + accuracy, which although on a smaller scale, are still the basic requirements of a top snooker player.

I wasn't trying to say men were not accurate, I was trying to say they would only be accurate enough for spear throwing, which is not necessarily as accurate as you need to be for needlework, or perhaps snooker.

There is a point at which additional accuracy (in spear throwing) gains you less than the cost involved in having it, so from an evolutionary/selection point of view that additional accuracy will not be selected for, instead the guy who is less accurate (but still accurate enough) and stronger (or faster, or better at judging a moving target) will be selected.

The recreational side of this ability is a relatively recent thing, for 30,000 years or so, there was no choice in the matter, men hunted, and women didn't. So over something like 2,000 generations, natural selection has finely honed the skillset needed in men, and also the desire to acquire that skillset, while during this time women were developing entirely different skills. So I'd give nature the upper hand here over nurture.

People do not inherit 'skills' like spear throwing or needlework from their ancestors, instead they inherit basic physical attributes like strength, co-ordination, good eyesight etc.

Evolution will select for these things, if and only if they are of benefit to survival. So, for example strength, speed and co-ordination may have been selected for in men, as it improved their hunting, or fighting, or similar. Of those, one of the traits may have been more important, like strength for example over speed or co-ordination. Meaning that a certain level of co-ordination might be required, but not more at the expense of something else like strength.

In women other traits would have been selected for, for different reasons, like initially how well they attract a strong mate who provides protection, food, etc. This may have included beauty, cunning/intelligence, or even co-ordination for their ability to create artworks and other such token which were valued even in primitive societies. I don't really know for what reason exactly, but the research I quoted appears to have found, for whatever evolutionary reason, that women are better at 'fine' motor skills, so really the only Q is how does that apply to snooker and does it outweigh other nurture related factors.

Which is why this wasn't actually the point I was trying to make with nature vs nurture comparison. As I see it, included in 'nurture' are the hours and hours of practice a snooker player, of either sex, puts in. This practice will easily (IMO) outweigh any natural ability they started with, which IMO only adds 1-2% to a professional players overall ability at the game.

It's also worth mentioning that social evolutionary change happens at a much faster rate than its physical counterpart, (a fact which I believe has a significant bearing on why our modern society is so messed up right now, but that's another topic) so even when given the inclination, time and opportunity to practice, etc, etc, the best male player will almost always beat the best female player, because of the overriding physical advantage gained over tens of thousands of years of natural selection for/of that skillset.

Then this is where we disagree.

Even if we assume for a minute that males have a physical advantage, it surely cannot account for more than a small percentage (1-2%) of the total skill of a professional player, of either sex. In which case, if you take a male and a female and give them an identical 'drive' to play the game, and identical practice time, coaching and other such 'nurture' type things, then the male will still have a small (1-2%) advantage. This in in turn, assuming everything else is equal (strategy, tactics, etc), which it may not be, would only mean that the male would win slightly more frames against the female.

But that same female would beat another male or female player with less drive/practice/(nurture) etc.

This is why I reckon the major factors for less women in snooker are nurture related, or if they're nature related, then they're things like less inclination to play a game where you hit balls with sticks (which is how my wife sees snooker)

But the spear throw is over a much greater distance.
Given that men frequently hit distances of 80-90+ meters in the javelin, I reckon that an expert hunter could bring down a deer at a distance of 40+ yards. To hit a (possibly moving) target area of a foot diameter at such distances with a spear requires incredible balance, accuracy, and power, easily equal to that required to playing snooker IMO.

Hitting a moving target is not the same as hitting a stationary one, the former requires a mental calculation for leading the target etc. This is another difference between snooker and spear throwing. Evolution will not select a spear thrower who was very accurate, but only with stationary targets.

Your 'expert' hunter is someone who has spent a long time practicing and "nurturing" their skill. I would suggest that the largest portion of their ability is based on nurture/practice and not their initial natural ability.

You're right, of course they're not the same, but I think it's a good enough comparison, and to me it seems clear that the skillsets required are very similar. It's certainly a lot more closely related to hunting, than it is to any activities carried out by women over the last 20-30 thousand years.

That's my point above ("People do not inherit 'skills'..."), snooker does not have to be similar to the activities/skills themselves, rather it needs to share the same basic underlying traits which are used for those activities (and are selected for and passed on generation to generation). Of these traits good eyesight, accuracy and fine motor control are paramount IMO, and the research seems to indicate women tend to be better at fine motor control..

Ah, but there is. Everyone knows that the harder you play a shot, the more inaccurate you cueing becomes. So the inverse of this means that if you are able to play with a lot of power while maintaining accuracy, then your accuracy at lower power levels is also greater.
I think in snooker, just as in other sports, it helps to be stronger and fitter than your opponent.

Take two players, player A is extremely accurate but lacks the ability to deliver that accuracy with power. Player B is equally accurate, but can also deliver that accuracy with power when needed. Which of the two would you put your hard earned cash on?

I agree that being stronger and fitter is helpful. But, there is a point at which more strength gives you no extra benefit and IMO that point is fairly low with snooker where the range of strength required is small, even taking into account the need to have control at that range of power.

Which is why I don't think player A above could actually exist, they would need to be so weak as to barely be able to hold themselves up.

Of the two players, I'd pick the one who had best nurtured their skill through practice and coaching


.. as a footnote I just want to say that I am really enjoying this discussion, as I do just about any discussion like this. However, I know that I am the sort of person who will continue to discuss things, and argue for my own ideas/opinions long after most other people get tired of it. So, if that happens can we please "agree to disagree" rather than let it get to the stage where anyone gets ticked off... because ticking someone off is never my intention.

[vmax4steve]

Of the two players, I'd pick the one who had best nurtured their skill through practice and coaching


.. as a footnote I just want to say that I am really enjoying this discussion, as I do just about any discussion like this. However, I know that I am the sort of person who will continue to discuss things, and argue for my own ideas/opinions long after most other people get tired of it. So, if that happens can we please "agree to disagree" rather than let it get to the stage where anyone gets ticked off... because ticking someone off is never my intention.

What you fail to acknowledge nrage is the absolute fact that there is no way on earth that any nurturing or coaching would enable Paris Hilton to be any good at any sport whatsoever, whereas any masculine lesbian type who excelled at sports and games would be open to coaching in any sport or game because she has a more masuline physique, probably due to testosterone levels, and has a brain wired in a masculine way that gives better hand eye co-ordination.
I would also put this same argument against any effeminate gay man with less than the natural male hand eye co-ordination being able to excell at any sport or game through coaching. If it's not there in the first place there is no one who can bring it out.

[PatBlock]

I wasn't trying to say men were not accurate, I was trying to say they would only be accurate enough for spear throwing, which is not necessarily as accurate as you need to be for needlework, or perhaps snooker.

Needlework is an excellent example of a true 'fine motor activity' unlike IMO snooker.

There is a point at which additional accuracy (in spear throwing) gains you less than the cost involved in having it,...

What cost??

...so from an evolutionary/selection point of view that additional accuracy will not be selected for, instead the guy who is less accurate (but still accurate enough) and stronger (or faster, or better at judging a moving target) will be selected.

Well, whether (-5% accuracy & +5% strength) > (+5% accuracy & -5% strength) is difficult to quantify exactly, but personally I'd go with the guy that can hit the target more often.
A good strong throw is no good at all if it misses. Whereas a weaker but more accurate throw may syill bring the beast down.

People do not inherit 'skills' like spear throwing or needlework from their ancestors...

I know.

I said "...natural selection has finely honed the skillset needed..."
Skill-Set, set of attributes required for a particular skill. Perhaps I should have been clearer. Sorry.

Evolution will select for these things, if and only if they are of benefit to survival.

Yes. As I said before, if you kill the beast, you eat, you live, you pass on your genes.
That's pretty beneficial to the survival of your line, isn't it?

...I don't really know for what reason exactly, but the research I quoted appears to have found, for whatever evolutionary reason, that women are better at 'fine' motor skills...

Well, what were the women doing while the men were out hunting?

Probably dealing with the previous kill, skinning, boning, preparing and storing the meat, making tools from the bones, making cloths and shelter with skins and the tools they'd made, gathering fuel, and other food, taking care of the children.....

You can see how the attributes described in your article would come in handy with these sort of activities.

Which is why this wasn't actually the point I was trying to make with nature vs nurture comparison. As I see it, included in 'nurture' are the hours and hours of practice a snooker player, of either sex, puts in. This practice will easily (IMO) outweigh any natural ability they started with, which IMO only adds 1-2% to a professional players overall ability at the game...

...Even if we assume for a minute that males have a physical advantage, it surely cannot account for more than a small percentage (1-2%) of the total skill of a professional player, of either sex...

...Your 'expert' hunter is someone who has spent a long time practicing and "nurturing" their skill. I would suggest that the largest portion of their ability is based on nurture/practice and not their initial natural ability...

Yes, this is really where we disagree (but in a nice way ) That and your perception of a snooker cue being a tiny object!

I'd say If you do not have the innate hard-wired attributes needed for a particular task, no amount of practice, dedication, or hard work will give them to you. You may mimic them to some extent, but you'll never really be any good.

However it's entirely possible for someone to do well at something for which they have an abundance of natural talent, with very little effort. They may not reach the top of their particular tree, but they'll do a lot better than their talentless counterpart who practices till the cows come home every night. I've actually witnessed this at first hand.

And what is sport after all, other than a modern socially acceptable way to express and sate our natural aggression. If you stand back and look at it all from a great distance, sport is just so clearly a male thing IMO (Except beach volleyball of course). It began as a way of training for the hunt or the fight, and is now just a recreational shadow of its former self.

Of these traits good eyesight, accuracy and fine motor control are paramount IMO, and the research seems to indicate women tend to be better at fine motor control..

Come on mate, give that one up . Needlecraft is a 'fine motor control activity, defined by the manipulating of tiny objects, snooker isn't.

I agree that being stronger and fitter is helpful. But, there is a point at which more strength gives you no extra benefit and IMO that point is fairly low with snooker where the range of strength required is small, even taking into account the need to have control at that range of power.

As I said before, power combined with accuracy is the key.

.. as a footnote I just want to say that I am really enjoying this discussion, as I do just about any discussion like this. However, I know that I am the sort of person who will continue to discuss things, and argue for my own ideas/opinions long after most other people get tired of it. So, if that happens can we please "agree to disagree" rather than let it get to the stage where anyone gets ticked off... because ticking someone off is never my intention.

No problems there mate, we're just having a chat over a pint as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, your round I think

-

[nrage]

What you fail to acknowledge nrage is the absolute fact that there is no way on earth that any nurturing or coaching would enable Paris Hilton to be any good at any sport whatsoever, whereas any masculine lesbian type who excelled at sports and games would be open to coaching in any sport or game because she has a more masuline physique, probably due to testosterone levels, and has a brain wired in a masculine way that gives better hand eye co-ordination.
I would also put this same argument against any effeminate gay man with less than the natural male hand eye co-ordination being able to excell at any sport or game through coaching. If it's not there in the first place there is no one who can bring it out.

I don't think there is any point in me arguing with you, as our opinions are just too different. I would point out that as far as I am aware there is no known link between masculinity/femininity and hand-eye co-ordination or any other physical attributes. There is however the very obvious trend in that certain personality types i.e. those we classify as feminine simply don't have any desire to 'compete' in the same way as the more masculine types do. And, as I've been saying all along the biggest contributor to a persons 'skill' at something is hours and hours of practice (nurture), not any sex based natural physical or mental advantage.

[nrage]

Needlework is an excellent example of a true 'fine motor activity' unlike IMO snooker.

This is our 1st point of contention.

I'm not saying a snooker cue is a tiny object, I don't think the size of the cue is important. The key here, to me, is the precision with which it must be manipulated. A stroke of the cue must hit within mm of the desired area, much like a needle hitting fabric. 'fine' motor control, does not refer to the object being controlled as being 'fine' it refers to the degree of accuracy and margin of error being 'fine'.

What cost??

Evolution is all about cost/benefit and finding the balance that, at that time, gives the greatest chance of survival.

In our specific example it might be that to get greater accuracy we need different eyes, perhaps like an eagle has, however perhaps those eyes are not as good at focusing in the short distance, or worse under low light conditions, or etc.. So the 'cost' in evolutionary terms is a loss of short range vision, low light vision, etc...

Alternately, to get stronger arms they need to be physically longer, like in a chimp or gorilla, but the 'cost' of that is that it affects balance and ability to run so we lose speed as a result.

Lastly, there is the 'cost' of actually growing the limbs, or eyes. If this cost is higher, then we need more input energy/food to do it, and this makes survival harder.

Evolution automatically takes all of this into account, and as a result we get a compromise/balance instead.

A very clear example of the last type of 'cost' is the hight that trees grow. Trees compete for sunlight, and they do this in a number of ways, one of which is to grow taller than the competition (other methods include diversifying to survive in different soil, climate, etc). But, to grow taller they use a lot of energy, which is a cost they would rather not pay, unless there is some benefit to it. End result, tall trees in dense forests (amazon etc) and short trees/plants in less densely populated areas.

Well, weather (-5% accuracy & +5% strength) > (+5% accuracy & -5% strength) is difficult to quantify exactly, but personally I'd go with the guy that can hit the target more often.
A good strong throw is no good at all if it misses. Whereas a weaker but more accurate throw may syill bring the beast down.

...

I know.

...

I said "...natural selection has finely honed the skillset needed..."
Skill-Set, set of attributes required for a particular skill. Perhaps I should have been clearer. Sorry.

...

Yes. As I said before, if you kill the beast, you eat, you live, you pass on your genes.
That's pretty beneficial to the survival of your line, isn't it?

...

Well, what were the women doing while the men were out hunting?

Probably dealing with the previous kill, skinning, boning, preparing and storing the meat, making tools from the bones, making cloths and shelter with skins and the tools they'd made, gathering fuel, and other food, taking care of the children.....

You can see how the attributes described in your article would come in handy with these sort of activities.

The beauty of evolution as a system is that it automatically weighs and balances every facet and selects the 'best' balance of features at any given time. That balance can change, slowly, or perhaps quickly - opinion is divided on whether 'great leaps' are possible or not. So, perhaps strong is better than accurate, until the prey evolves to move faster and in doing so loses the hard skin/shell because it was slowing it down and accurate becomes more important than strong.

We can't possibly consider all the variables now, let alone guess what they might have been. The best we can do is go with current studies and evidence and decide how they apply to snooker, which is contention #1 above I reckon.

Yes, this is really where we disagree (but in a nice way ) That and your perception of a snooker cue being a tiny object!

I'd say If you do not have the innate hard-wired attributes needed for a particular task, no amount of practice, dedication, or hard work will give them to you. You may mimic them to some extent, but you'll never really be any good.

However it's entirely possible for someone to do well at something for which they have an abundance of natural talent, with very little effort. They may not reach the top of their particular tree, but they'll do a lot better than their talentless counterpart who practices till the cows come home every night. I've actually witnessed this at first hand.

And what is sport after all, other than a modern socially acceptable way to express and sate our natural aggression. If you stand back and look at it all from a great distance, sport is just so clearly a male thing IMO (Except beach volleyball of course). It began as a way of training for the hunt or the fight, and is now just a recreational shadow of its former self.

This is the 2nd point of contention; nature vs nurture..

I don't disagree that someone with natural talent with find it easier to get good at something, or that they can reach a higher level of ability. I don't disagree that someone without natural talent will have a hard time, and may never be as 'good' at something as someone with talent.

What I disagree about is the amount of difference between men and women and the idea that women are so much worse than men that most will be like the 'untalented' person we're talking about above.

What I'm suggesting is that women are as likely (on average) to be as naturally talented with traits which are beneficial for snooker, as men. The exact traits women have and men have may be different i.e. women may be more accurate and men better at judging angles or similar, but the end result IMO is a roughly even balance, because snooker requires more or less of many different traits.

Assuming the above, and assuming equal quality and duration of practice and equal desire to play I see no reason why women cannot play at the top levels of snooker. This is actually the point I was trying to make.

I agree that it is very different with sports where running, jumping, or any other full body action is involved like football, volleyball, etc.. men are clearly at an advantage with these, as the studies indicate they should be.

But, snooker is not like that, and only requires some of the same traits, and I believe they are traits women share to the same degree.

There is an exception to the "men rule at all whole body/physical activity" and that is in disciplines like figure skating where precision and grace are prized above strength and speed. Here it is women who excel, specifically because they naturally have more precision and grace (fine motor control .. they are able to more precisely move/position their bodies).

All that said, the major factor(s), to my mind, are not phsyical but instead are the desire to play and/or societal pressure/stereotyping preventing them playing, plus the availability of practice and coaching (free from ridicule etc). Or in other words, nurture factors rather than nature ones.

No problems there mate, we're just having a chat over a pint as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, your round I think

Good good.. what'll you have?

[PatBlock]

This is our 1st point of contention.

I'm not saying a snooker cue is a tiny object, I don't think the size of the cue is important. The key here, to me, is the precision with which it must be manipulated. A stroke of the cue must hit within mm of the desired area, much like a needle hitting fabric. 'fine' motor control, does not refer to the object being controlled as being 'fine' it refers to the degree of accuracy and margin of error being 'fine'.

OK, can we just deal with this one for now, I think we're trying to cover too much ground at once, and it's all getting a bit messy.

So, Fine Motor Controll or FMC.

The size of the implement, and the manner in which it's being manipulated are crucial to the definition. In all of the definitions I found online, the word 'small' was used frequently, to describe the object and/or the movement:

Fine motor control
URL of this page: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002364.htm

Fine motor control is the coordination of muscles, bones, and nerves to produce small, precise movements. An example of fine motor control is picking up a small item with the index finger and thumb.

The opposite of fine motor control is gross (large, general) motor control. An example of gross motor control is waving an arm in greeting.


So, Just because an object is being manipulated accurately, does not automatically make it FMC. It is also entirely possible to manipulate larger objects that would not come under the FMC category with accuracy.

Can we agree on this?


And where is the FMC involved during the delivery of the cue? You're not moving it slightly left or right or up or down with extreme accuracy as the tip moves towards the cueball, the movement is ideally a perfectly straight thrust forward, the accuracy is in fact in making sure that there is no FMC movement during the delivery, which would throw the cue off line.
It's an accelerated strait forwards thrust, GMC if ever I saw it.
Well aimed and controlled GMC I grant you, but GMC every day of the week for me.

Good good.. what'll you have?

I'll have a pint of Hoegaarden please, cheers.

-

[nrage]

OK, can we just deal with this one for now, I think we're trying to cover too much ground at once, and it's all getting a bit messy.

So, Fine Motor Controll or FMC.

The size of the implement, and the manner in which it's being manipulated are crucial to the definition. In all of the definitions I found online, the word 'small' was used frequently, to describe the object and/or the movement:

Fine motor control
URL of this page: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002364.htm

Fine motor control is the coordination of muscles, bones, and nerves to produce small, precise movements. An example of fine motor control is picking up a small item with the index finger and thumb.

The opposite of fine motor control is gross (large, general) motor control. An example of gross motor control is waving an arm in greeting.


So, Just because an object is being manipulated accurately, does not automatically make it FMC. It is also entirely possible to manipulate larger objects that would not come under the FMC category with accuracy.

Can we agree on this?

No, sorry.

Have a read of this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_s...e_motor_skills

Specifically these sections...

"Fine motor skill require the use of smaller muscle groups to perform tasks that are precise in nature."

vs

"Gross motor skill require the use of large muscle groups to perform tasks like walking, balancing, crawling. The skill required is not extensive and therefore are usually associated with continuous tasks"

(emphasis added by me as it relates to our topic of discussion).

Snooker is definitely a task which is precise in nature, and definitely not a task where The skill required is not extensive.

The size of the object is not relevant, but the fact that precision is required is. This determines which muscles we use and whether the action comes under FMC or GMC. We use small muscle groups for precision and the amount of precision we have is determined by our FMC.

So, in actual fact to throw a spear we use FMC and small muscles in our hand, wrist, arm and shoulder to aim, and then the large muscles simply provide the power. Throwing a spear therefore does require good FMC, and in fact most of the actions/tasks we perform are not simply one (FMC) or the other (GMC) but in fact both at once to varying degrees.

Men have good FMC, I'm not saying they don't, the argument is that women (on average) have slightly better FMC, and slightly worse GMC. And in the case of spear throwing where power etc is more important the balance favours men. But in the case of snooker where accuracy is more important I believe the balance favours women.

But, .. and this is point of contention #2 .. the fact that the difference is slight (on average) is why I think nurture factors, not nature factors (possible exception being the desire to play) is the major factor preventing women reaching the top levels of the game.

And where is the FMC involved during the delivery of the cue? You're not moving it slightly left or right or up or down with extreme accuracy as the tip moves towards the cueball

Yes, actually you are.

FMC is involved in placing the cue on it's initial alignment before the delivery, and is involved in making minute real-time adjustment(s) during the delivery to ensure the cue remains on line. Essentially, FMC is involved in every movement we make with small muscle groups where precision is required.

the movement is ideally a perfectly straight thrust forward, the accuracy is in fact in making sure that there is no FMC movement during the delivery, which would throw the cue off line.
It's an accelerated strait forwards thrust, GMC if ever I saw it.
Well aimed and controlled GMC I grant you, but GMC every day of the week for me.

It it's well aimed and controlled, then FMC is involved. If it's uncontrolled, or not "extensively" controlled then it's GMC. Your example of "waving an arm in greeting" is GMC precisely because you're not attempting to stop at exactly the same spot at either side of the motion, or control the exact path between points, it is not an "extensively" controlled motion.

[PatBlock]

Funny, that article just seems to strengthen my point of view as far as I see it.

Wouldn't you say that walking on 2 legs as we do, is precise and extensively controlled in it's nature? As I'm sure you know, it's an extremely subtle and highly complex task, requiring great accuracy.

It it's well aimed and controlled, then FMC is involved. If it's uncontrolled, or not "extensively" controlled then it's GMC.

But if you're right, how can that be? After all, it apparently comes under the GMC umbrella.

I think it's a mistake to lump all accurate motor control into the 'fine' category.
And I don't think that the action of delivering the cue belongs there, for the reasons I gave earlier.

Incidentally, talking of walking, have a look at this:

http://hypotheticalthinking.wordpres...ing-really-is/



-

[PatBlock]

Throwing a spear or a ball or a punch or whatever, obviously requires accuracy, and therefore fine control to deliver the power with that accuracy. So what's required here is a combination of fine and gross motor control, gross delivering the power, and fine directing it. Men seem more adept at this mix of the two. So, yes women are better at 'pure' FMC, but the more power and GMC you add into the mix, the less accurate their FMC becomes.

This seems to be self evident in most sports, including snooker. Although it's not the most physical of sports, it still requires that combination of gross and fine control, which men are better equipped for.

Also, as you said before, there's probably a 'nature' element to the difference in motivation, aggression, desire to win etc. So when added together, both of these natural predispositions combine to give men the edge in most sports.

There is of course also a social and/or 'nurture' element, but if it were just that, surely we would have had a more successful women snooker player by now. Which is of course where we came in.

-

[wildJONESEYE]

jesus this is getting very technical now its like a biology lesson..

any time soon we will be moving in to conceiving and the birth of babies :-)