Women's Sports

When Caster Semenya races, people talk. Sometimes in support of her, but very often it's the opposite, sadly enough. Lately, this latter sort (or something very close to it) has been coming from her sister athletes, that is, her competitors, many of whom think it unfair that they should have to race against her.

But let's forget, for a moment, Semenya. Rather, let's focus on the ignorant, gender-abasing obsession with a "male biology" that supposedly confers unfair, insuperable athletic advantage, here in particular the hormone testosterone:

"We have levels that we are not allowed to test over, so even if she’s a female, she’s on the very fringe of the normal female athlete biological composition from what I understand in terms of hormone testing," Cummins [Diane Cummins, who finished eighth in Berlin] said. "So from that perspective I think most of us sort of just feel like literally we are running against a man because what we know to be female is a certain testosterone level. And if that isn't the case, they need to change everything."

The first and most obvious problem with such thinking: There is no certain (precisely defined) testosterone level for females! Testosterone, the so-called male hormone which nearly all women have in their bodies, can be found in widely varying amounts among women, with some women having levels well into the range generally considered "male".

What is more, even a baseline testosterone level for individuals is hard to come by. Monitor someone's testosterone and you'll find that it changes constantly, responding to all manner of environmental factors, some seemingly random, others quite predictable. Strength training, for instance, increases testosterone naturally, only women have to work just a little harder and longer to get the benefit. Sex (# 8), too, raises testosterone levels. (Should female track athletes with already "high" levels abstain from sex before meets?)

Research the subjects of steroid-, hormone-, and gender-testing for a time and you see how silly and hurtful the effort to make sport perfectly "fair" has become. Anything beyond the most basic of tests is in fact pointless and counterproductive. The witch-hunt has to end sometime.

In what can fairly be described as one of the more exciting finishes in recent MMA history, Strikeforce 135-pound champion Sarah Kaufman knocked out Roxanne Modafferi with a "power bomb" Friday night—that is to say, she lifted Modafferi high off the canvas and slammed her back down with such force that Modafferi was effectively knocked unconscious.

The happy champion explains post-fight how she got the TKO:




There is, moreover, an object lesson here. The following clip has Kaufman's coach telling us that he's never seen a fighter with better strength and conditioning, and Kaufman's performance Friday certainly gave no reason to doubt him, for it showed once more that, all else being equal, strength is often the difference in athletic competition:

After much bumbling, the IAAF has cleared Caster Semenya to compete again. I'm happy for Semenya, and slightly hopeful that the lesson has been learned so that no one else has to go through such tribulation.

Editor's note: Even sans the note it should be obvious that today's is a guest post. Thanks to Samantha Wheeler, our topic is one seldom covered on this blog: sports fashion. Enjoy!—Rob

For most of its brief history, women's golf clothing has been notoriously uncomfortable, not user-friendly and detrimental to the performance of women. Unlike men's golf clothes which provided some performance enhancements, ladies of the game have suffered the pain of restrictive and non-expressive golf garments.

With the massive construction of golf clubs, came the emergence of stringent clothing restrictions. Victorian ladies were required to play in high-necked, long-sleeved blouses, bowler hats, full-length skirts, and button shoes. As you can imagine, none of these clothes provided any physical benefits to the female player. It would be like playing golf in a straight jacket.

The breathable and light-weight materials seen on the links today were over a century away from being developed. Hours of playing golf in the heat with a cotton shirt and wool blazer pushed women away from the sport. Golf is a difficult sport as it is, the last thing players need are clothes that hinder their performance even more.



Women players had to live with the clothing handicap for over sixty years before a glimpse of hope emerged in the sixties. The shorter and looser skirt was taken from tennis and put on the golf courses. Women were now provided the mobility and comfort they needed to focus on their game. This is what powered the comeback of women in golf.



Not everything was perfect for the women golfer. Clothing may have increased the overall performance of women on the links but many of the styles remained masculine. Only serious female golfers looked beyond the fashionable drawbacks of golf to prove themselves with their success and not their looks. However, this mentality was not enough to put the 13 player LPGA founded in 1950 on the map.



Only in the 90s did Nike and adidas bring top quality clothing to the female golf market to provide women a benefit from wearing their clothing. With technologies such as ClimaLite and Dri-FIT, women were free to focus entirely on their game and not their clothing. Nike and adidas' successes could be attributed to pairing their clothing with talented women who would prove themselves on the course with their ability rather than their beauty. Today, the LPGA's powerhouse athletes like Michelle Wie and Amanda Blumenhest can in part be credited to this overdue disregard for standards of feminine beauty that are incongruous with an athletic lifestyle.

Samantha Wheeler
Freelance Writer, Lija Style
www.lijastyle.com

Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in all federally-funded education programs, and athletics programs signally, was enacted 28 38 years ago today. Never without its naysayers, Title IX has despite them been an unmitigated success. Though not the final answer to gender equality in sports—something that can't be won by mere edict—Title IX opened a path to opportunities previously denied to athletic girls.

Nothing serves better to get across the transcendent difference opportunity makes than a real-life success story. And to that end, today I offer one furnished by the California Women's Law Center:

During high school and college, gymnastics, soccer, and diving were the outlets for her athleticism. Now, those have been replaced by stunt work and free running. See if you think Luci "Steel" Romberg is incredible (I bet you do):

The NCAA basketball champion UConn Huskies were honored at the White House yesterday. Watching the ceremony, I knew they had earned every morsel of President Obama's lofty praise:

Editor's note: You have Annette Lyndon to thank for this guest post. Annette is a contributing writer at Your Source 4 Sports.—Rob

The 2010 South African FIFA World Cup is fast approaching. Fans from all over the globe will be flocking to South Africa to watch their countries compete. Excitement is building as the opening match approaches (June 11th). Football, or soccer (US), is the world’s sport, and mounting anticipation can only be expected. However, a high level of enthusiasm is coming from an unlikely nation this year, the USA.

While sports are an integral part of American culture, soccer never really gained popularity as a primary spectator sport. For many years soccer was accepted as a popular team sport for youths and never caught on in the mainstream arena. But recently soccer has taken flight and is becoming more than recognized as part of the American sports lineup. Major League Soccer (MLS) was founded in 1993 and today has 16 major league teams. The sport has also attracted a large number of individuals from many backgrounds. Soccer teams and clubs are increasing in popularity in US inner cities. Role models, like Cobi Jones from the LA Galaxy, have demonstrated minority involvement within the sport and are encouraging youths from different ethnicities to adopt playing it as well. Soccer has also developed as an important sport for women. In the US, 35% of all soccer players are female, one of the highest percentages of women participants around the world. Soccer in America is helping to cross racial, as well as gender, lines.

While the United States has their own teams, fans are broadening their horizons and watching international play as well. Many American soccer fans have begun to follow popular foreign teams like Spain’s Real Madrid and Britain’s Manchester United. Yet, when the World Cup begins, you can be sure that the majority of the country will be supporting the USA. As of March 31st, the USA ranks 16th out of the total 204 world teams who entered to take part in the games and qualified for the tournament. The USA is scheduled to play its first match against England on the 12th of June. An overwhelming number of American fans are traveling to South Africa to see the US play. It is reported that Americans stand second after South Africans as primary ticket holders for the tournament.

While American fans may have to fly overseas this year to attend the festivities, in the future they may not have to leave their own backyard. The United States is being considered as the host country for the 2018 World Cup. Former President Clinton’s top counselor, Doug Band, has accepted an invitation to join the Board of Directors as a member of the USA Bid Committee in an attempt to bring the World Cup to the US in 2018 or 2022. Adding him to the committee should increase the chance that the U.S. has at winning the bid since Doug Band is known worldwide for his international philanthropic initiatives, thus improving the relationship the U.S. has with over 170 foreign countries. Ultimately, the hope is that the committee effort will continue to boost soccer enthusiasm in the US and bring the nation to the forefront as a serious contender for the bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

But this good news comes with a caveat, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. Girls are hitting the weight room more than ever before, and not surprisingly that has come with a price—more injuries occurring in the weight room.

The price, however, is a small one compared to the injuries to be prevented by girls' building stronger, more durable bodies. Not only that, it is one that can be avoided without too much difficulty.

Despite the hyperbole ("alarming rate") fated to any topic that finds its way into mainstream media, the news here is straightforward and mostly propitious; but it does require some attention:

The problem:

"Using data from 100 emergency rooms, researchers found that although men and boys still make up the majority of gym injuries, the increase was the largest among teen girls, indicating that more girls are lifting weights than ever before."

The cause:

"From that [data collected from hospitals], researchers were able to surmise that lack of supervision was the main reason girls were hurting themselves, not because they were lifting too much."

The solution:

"Getting proper instruction on how to use the machines and lift safely is essential, and always use a spotter with free weights."

See, not so hard, was it?

Aneta Florczyk owns the official title but one could make the case that Becca Swanson is the strongest woman in the world. Swanson holds every noteworthy world powerlifting record, including a 600-lb bench press that is daunting even to contemplate.

Not long ago, Swanson visited Jakked Hardcore Gym to lift with some of the strongest men in the Chicago area. The T-shirt says it all:

Somewhere there is a little girl warming up with your max

By giving young women many more opportunities to compete in athletics Title IX made possible the awe-inspiring female athletes we see today. I am singularly grateful for that.

Never far from it, Title IX was again in the news this week when the Obama administration, of course not without fanfare, announced that it was revising (or re-revising) the rules of compliance for colleges.

I am not an expert on Title IX arcana, and have no desire to be, but ever the chronicler of politicians' capers, I can say without risking much that the move was made with political calculations in mind. The reform actually goes against the advice of the bipartisan United States Commission on Civil Rights, and is probably a political stunt more than anything else. Obama and his minions know that he needs his base intact when angry white men turn out en masse this November, if he is to keep Congress anyway.

Is the reform, then, itself wrong-headed? I don't think so, but I don't know enough about it to be counted on to say. But it is odd, I think, that the change goes against the recommendations of the USCCR. And at the Sports Economist I found another option, seemingly ignored altogether, which again made me think. Then there was the infernal logic of the Cato Institute.

I really couldn't care less about men's sports, collegiate or otherwise, and I'm always skeptical of claims suggesting that opportunities are being "stolen" from men and handed to women. Nonetheless, I do care about fairness, individual rights, rule of law—the things that make our society at least marginally better than a banana republic.

Title IX has clearly done much good. But that doesn't mean it's only benign. The handiwork of politicians rarely is (and the Law of Unintended Consequences usually has its say if nothing else). Hence Title IX supporters, and here I count myself, should always be mindful of its potential flaws.

Finally, I'll caution once more against thinking that female athletes can gain equal status simply by fiat. That must be earned in gyms and on playing fields.




(Umm, did I miss something?)

Most of you no doubt know by now that Martina Navratilova has been diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately, a full recovery is expected, thanks in large part to its early detection—the key to beating cancer.

Any coherent list of greatest female athletes would have Navratilova near the top. She has profoundly influenced not only her sport, tennis, but women's sports generally. What is more, she openly challenged, sometimes at cost to her career, parochial views of gender and sexual orientation.

Reading a piece by Greg Couch of FanHouse.com brought to mind again how remarkably ahead of her time was Navratilova. Long ago, she showed the way to excellence in women's athletics, how outworn feminine ideals must be shrugged off unabashedly with brawny shoulders. Despite the backsliding we've seen at times, the changes that Navratilova and a few other pioneers ushered in seem now to have taken hold, though never should they be taken for granted:

She committed fully to building strength and fitness, which led her to become one of the greatest tennis players of all time, setting up one of sports' great, all-time individual rivalries with Chris Evert.

Navratilova won that rivalry, but Evert was always the popular one, usually seen as the good guy.

It was something Navratilova had trouble accepting.

As is often the case when someone breaks a mold, it was met with discomfort when she began to bulk up. At the time, her muscular appearance was seen as unfeminine. But she would change women's sports with it.

Even Evert, bypassed by Navratilova during her career, began lifting weights and improving her fitness, which allowed her to win another major title.

And today, the muscle and strength in women's tennis and women's sports in general, a great example to young girls, is almost mandatory.

She is an authentic heroine. We look forward to her full and speedy recovery.

My post from yesterday started to feel oddly prescient as I watched Maya Moore take control in the second half of the championship game last night. Considering, though, how perfectly in tune was her performance with her character and athletic talent, I probably shouldn't swap my current trade for astrology or crystal-gazing.

The magic is all hers.

Probably Maya Moore would excel in any sport she chose to compete in, so exceptional are her athletic gifts. But she has opted for basketball, and tonight she will lead her undefeated UConn Huskies into battle against the Stanford Cardinal to decide the national championship.

We certainly don't need science to tell us how good Maya is. But neither can science reveal to us precisely what makes her so good—some of the elite athlete's magic remains cloaked, perhaps for ever and for the best.

I rarely find much sound thinking in the writings of an avowed Marxist, but "Let Caster Semenya Run!" by Dave Zirin and Sherry Wolf actually contains snippets of clarity, as here:

What is really at stake here, aside from the persecution of a young athlete? Lurking beneath the salacious coverage is the sports world's underlying ethic--women are inferior to men.

The notion that there is an enormous physical gulf between men and women's athletic abilities is rarely questioned. No male athletes are tested to see if they are intersex because maleness is considered the physical gold standard against which women must be judged. Silly details like what happens when attempts are made at leveling the playing field between the sexes are ignored. For example, the 1988 Olympic record in the women's 400-meter freestyle swim would have beaten all men's times before the 1972 Olympics. In cross-country skiing, where endurance, strength and agility are key, the women's Olympic record of the fifteen-kilometer race in 1994 would have beaten all men's before 1992. In the thirty-kilometer race, the women's Olympic time in 1992 would have beaten all men's times in previous 30-kilometer races, according to the Women's Sports Foundation.

And perhaps this is also the case, once or twice anyway, in Wolf's book.

Still, the cognitive dissonance one experiences when even for a moment considering that communist thought might be the place from which human rights will spring is too much to endure. There are philosophies, nay organizations, much better suited to bring about the changes that Wolf allegedly champions.