TargetTalk

Anonymous wrote:

Richard H wrote:I was just reviewing the posts here and there is a funny thing, the only Europeans that have had any say in this topic are from the UK (& Ireland). Like I said in an earlier post the UK has been very progressive in womens issues just like North America. Does the silience say something?

I think it rather suggests that the only European countries with English as the native language are the UK and Ireland.

I have been to Europe and many have a working knowledge of english both written and verbal. There are others who post here all the time so, i doubt that has anything to do with it.

I've been following this thread with interest for some time and it seems to me no one has yet to able to answer the question Nicole put forward; why is that a woman cannot compete in free pistol or rapid fire pistol at the Olympic or international level if she so wish? At the very least its bad PR, and if the shooting sports wants attracts more participants, especially female ones, how can we say to them if you wants to go to the Olympic, there are 2 events for you while there are 3 for men?

The day men and women can compete under the same course of fire may be very far off, in the mean time, I would like to put forward some suggestions for your consideration.

1. Introduce standard pistol as a unisex event at Olympic , World Championship etc.

2. Introduce rapid fire air pistol (falling plates) as a women only event.

3. Introduce women prone rifle event.

4. Some events can be designate as pair or team events consist of one male and one female shooter, kind of like mix double in tennis or pair figure skating.

I can already hear some of you say " the ISSF and the IOC will never agree to this, they are try to cut back number of events and participants, besides the schedule is already too tight to allow more events." I'll disagree, I don't think the IOC and the ISSF can be seen in the light of opposing more women particpated in one the founding event of the mordern Olympic movement, if there are enough women demands it. As for the schedule, some indoor events like air rifle can be conducted in the evening to free up more range time. Some of the above suggestion may or may not be doable presently, but I would like to hear others opinions and comments.

Finally, notes to Nicole and any interested female shooters, changes only come when there is demands for it, also if you or any other female shooter can consistantly kick butts in FP and RP, may be even set a couple of records for good measure, that will make these unfair rules looks rather silly, don't you think? How about beat them at thier own games?

I believe that the chances of extra Olympic disciplines being introduced has already been described as slim.

The Olympic programme does not cover the full range of matches run by ISSF; shooting is unfortunately a minority sport in much of the world, so the Olympic games will only contain a part of it.


The ladies prone event is included in other ISSF events.

I think that there is one aspect that has not yet been touched upon, funding. It might be difficult for a female shooter to compete equally with men in say free pistol. Until international events allow female shooters to compete in the full range of disciplines (even if segregated), will there be the funding to allow promisisng shooters to challenge men? Certainly in Britain it would be a Catch-22 situation, no prospect of medals = no funding, no funding = no prospect of medals.

Is there any truth in this.

Tim S

Exeter, United Kingdom

I think women need to compete amongst the men at 'male' events for example free pistol, in their home countries before going any further. I have never seen a single lady free pistol shooter at any competition in the UK yet I know a number have purchased them - so until they enter the comps it's a pointless argument. Perhaps in the US more ladies do compete in FP and the other traditionally male events if so that's the first step. The next, as mentioned, has to be to start getting amongst the medals and then you can drive the change from within.

Rob.

Just kite flying here, but . . . is there a specific reason (other than the rules) why men and women cannot compete together in air rifle and air pistol?

Given that all top shooters now use compressed-air systems (less fatigue, effort, etc) I find it hard to believe that top female athletes would not be able to string together 60 shots just as well as any male.

FredMannis wrote:

FredB wrote: USAS target shooting is fully integrated at all but the highest level, that level being preparatory to international competition, which has its own rules that we in the US cannot alter.
FredB

FredB,
I don't understand the statement. I have competed in USAS FP and AP matches. The courses of fire were only for men, and all the participants were men. If a woman were to show up and shoot, how would her score be reported? What are the lower levels you refer to?
FredM

FredM,

Perhaps I over-generalized from my own experience, but at all of our local USAS matches, men and women (when they show up) compete side by side in any match they choose. As far as reporting scores, all I know is that, when I am the one to transcribe the scores onto the USAS form, I've been told to just put down the number of shots fired and the score. I don't know how USAS deals with the reported scores. For our meager local awards, the match director indicates both the 40 shot and 60 shot totals for women in AP, for example, so women are eligible for awards in both categories.

It was also my experience at the two master's camps I attended at the OTC, that men and women shot side by side, including a 3X AP match which occurred at one of the camps, although I think that the awards were made in separate categories for that match. However. I believe the Top Gun competition, which is now a part of the 3X matches, is integrated.

That's the total of my experience, as I have not traveled to matches outside of this area. If other match directors are more rigid about separating genders, I'm sorry to hear that, but I still don't see it as an institutional problem, since we are able to run sanctioned matches under the conditions described above. Hope this answers your question.

FredB

Tony C. wrote:Finally, notes to Nicole and any interested female shooters, changes only come when there is demands for it, also if you or any other female shooter can consistantly kick butts in FP and RP, may be even set a couple of records for good measure, that will make these unfair rules looks rather silly, don't you think? How about beat them at thier own games?

If only I had the talent! I just got my own FP, a very nice Pardini K22, yesterday afternoon and shot it for the first time at our club's weekly informal FP event last night. (I've been shooting at these matches for about a month, but until yesterday, with my Pardini SP.) I really like this event and I'm an "okay" shooter but don't expect to see me at the Olympics: I shot a 489.

But hopefully, there's some other woman out there who really can do that butt kicking you're suggesting. :)

Since this thread started, I've been thinking or reviewing match results. I thought I had in the past observed a difference in scores, indicating that perhaps there is a performance capability or expectation limit that make men's scores look better.

This goes against our belief that shooting is one sport where neither gender has a true advantage over the other.

but WHY is the MQS a lower percentage for women than for men?

looking only at air pistol because that's what I shoot and lunch hour isn't long enough to look at everything.

MQS for men is 563 which is 93.8333% or 375.3 pts per 40 shots
MQS for women is 365 which is 91.25% or 547.5pts per 60 shots,
The women qualify with 10 to 15 points LOWER than men need.

(this and what follows do not take into account my (unverified) belief that the last 20 shots that men only shoot are harder and lower score due to fatique.)

So right off the bat, ISSF makes it EASIER for a woman to qualify for the olympics.

Once they get there how do they do?

Well, in 2004 Wang YiFu drop 10 points while shooting 60 shots, or 1.666% of his available points. Ms Kosteevych dropped 16 points while shooting fewer shots, or 4% of her available points,

Arguably she did almost 3 times worse.

(Neither of them was in 1st place going into the finals.)

qualifier results for the top 3 finalists:
AP 2004 Oly
Men 590, 591, 584 which corresponds to 393.3, 394 and 389 converting from 60 to 40 shots
Women 483, 387, 386 which corresponds to 576, 580.5, 579 converted.

Top score Ms Sekaric's 387 converts to 580.5, she would have been in 11th place against men, she would not even have made the finals in an open event.

I'm running out of lunch hour here, but I also looked at the 2005 World cup in Munich, Air Pistol only again

Men
591, 588, 586
Women
386, 389, 389
again, normalized the scores, the top scoring women (both of them) would have been in 12th place, a woman would not even have made the finals in an open event

I suspect that we would find the same pattern for all pistol events, perhaps even all shooting events.

(NOW, one thing could change the outcome of this analysis, if the final 20 shots are much much better and skew the percentage up for men. In which case the woman to dry fire 20 shots before the match will have a distinct advantage. But I don't think we will find this to be the case.)

So, a very, very limited analysis of some limited data suggests that in this one sport event possibly men have an advantage that is physical, mental, cultural or related to the availability of training or coaching.

By segregating men and women into separate events the olympic and ISSF organizers ensure that women alway have an opportunity to win or medal in proportion to their participation

It is in women's interest that shooting is segrated by gender.

This may explain why integrated shooting such as US NRA events draw fewer women.

Integrating men & women may cause two effects, one, women who participate will be driven to compete even harder and two, only the very best women will stay in it. The result being that here and there a few women will excel and beat the men (a situation Arizona High Power Rifle shooters have grown accustomed to).

I don't like the concept that one gender has an advantage over the other, it goes against my American egalitarian beliefs. But this is what I observe in a limited analysis. I invite others to review match results to build up the body of evidence and either confirm or dispute this conclusion. http://www.issf-shooting.org/update/cal ... de=results it was suggested earlier than women have an advantage in standing rifle due to body shape, this should be considered when looking at AR scores.

I ABSOLUTELY do NOT intend this to provoke an emotional argument about gender elitism or discrimination.

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

Bill Poole wrote:Since this thread started, I've been thinking or reviewing match results. I thought I had in the past observed a difference in scores, indicating that perhaps there is a performance capability or expectation limit that make men's scores look better.

This goes against our belief that shooting is one sport where neither gender has a true advantage over the other.

but WHY is the MQS a lower percentage for women than for men?

looking only at air pistol because that's what I shoot and lunch hour isn't long enough to look at everything.

MQS for men is 563 which is 93.8333% or 375.3 pts per 40 shots
MQS for women is 365 which is 91.25% or 547.5pts per 60 shots,
The women qualify with 10 to 15 points LOWER than men need.

(this and what follows do not take into account my (unverified) belief that the last 20 shots that men only shoot are harder and lower score due to fatique.)

So right off the bat, ISSF makes it EASIER for a woman to qualify for the olympics.

Once they get there how do they do?

Well, in 2004 Wang YiFu drop 10 points while shooting 60 shots, or 1.666% of his available points. Ms Kosteevych dropped 16 points while shooting fewer shots, or 4% of her available points,

Arguably she did almost 3 times worse.

(Neither of them was in 1st place going into the finals.)

qualifier results for the top 3 finalists:
AP 2004 Oly
Men 590, 591, 584 which corresponds to 393.3, 394 and 389 converting from 60 to 40 shots
Women 483, 387, 386 which corresponds to 576, 580.5, 579 converted.

Top score Ms Sekaric's 387 converts to 580.5, she would have been in 11th place against men, she would not even have made the finals in an open event.

I'm running out of lunch hour here, but I also looked at the 2005 World cup in Munich, Air Pistol only again

Men
591, 588, 586
Women
386, 389, 389
again, normalized the scores, the top scoring women (both of them) would have been in 12th place, a woman would not even have made the finals in an open event

I suspect that we would find the same pattern for all pistol events, perhaps even all shooting events.

(NOW, one thing could change the outcome of this analysis, if the final 20 shots are much much better and skew the percentage up for men. In which case the woman to dry fire 20 shots before the match will have a distinct advantage. But I don't think we will find this to be the case.)

So, a very, very limited analysis of some limited data suggests that in this one sport event possibly men have an advantage that is physical, mental, cultural or related to the availability of training or coaching.

By segregating men and women into separate events the olympic and ISSF organizers ensure that women alway have an opportunity to win or medal in proportion to their participation

It is in women's interest that shooting is segrated by gender.

This may explain why integrated shooting such as US NRA events draw fewer women.

Integrating men & women may cause two effects, one, women who participate will be driven to compete even harder and two, only the very best women will stay in it. The result being that here and there a few women will excel and beat the men (a situation Arizona High Power Rifle shooters have grown accustomed to).

I don't like the concept that one gender has an advantage over the other, it goes against my American egalitarian beliefs. But this is what I observe in a limited analysis. I invite others to review match results to build up the body of evidence and either confirm or dispute this conclusion. http://www.issf-shooting.org/update/cal ... de=results it was suggested earlier than women have an advantage in standing rifle due to body shape, this should be considered when looking at AR scores.

I ABSOLUTELY do NOT intend this to provoke an emotional argument about gender elitism or discrimination.

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

MQS does not get one into the Olympics you need to earn a quota spot which is significantly greater for both sexes than the MQS.

You are drawing inferences with incomplete data (one match and a sample of 3 from each sex not a very good representation of the population).

Using your data it also could be used to prove that women are harmed by the separation of genders.

It's a known fact that to improve one's scores it advantagous to shoot with people who shoot better than you. So the same data could be used to show that women shoot lower scores because they are not allowed to shoot with the men who have higher scores.

Bill Poole wrote:By segregating men and women into separate events the olympic and ISSF organizers ensure that women alway have an opportunity to win or medal in proportion to their participation

It is in women's interest that shooting is segrated by gender.

This may explain why integrated shooting such as US NRA events draw fewer women.

It in the interest only of the women who might actually have a chance of winning. But there are many, many more women who shoot an event than ever expect to win, else what the heck is the value of winning? For all the rest of those women who do not expect to win, more important is the chance to compete, which currently is denied to them in some cases (e.g., free pistol at the USAS Nationals), purely because of gender, not because they weren't good enough. (The only qualification males have to present is a check in the right amount.)

But let's assume, for sake of argument, that the best male shooters are always likely to be better than the best female shooters. Does that mean that men likely have a physical or mental or other advantage? Of course not. It's possible, sure, but to me it seems far more likely that, as in most things, we're looking at bell-shaped distributions of ability. The more samples you take (i.e., the more individuals from a group who choose to compete), the greater the probability that you'll happen across some outlyer whose abilities are several sigma to the right. To decide if men really have any advantage over women, we'd need to consider the whole curves (or at least, mean and standard deviation,) not just the highest observed. Because most shooting events require only that you stand real still and pull a trigger that takes maybe a couple pounds, it seems pretty unlikely to me that there's much advantage to one gender over the other.

Returning to your point that it's in "women's interest" that shooting is segregated, that would be true if what what we had was "separate but equal." But we don't. We have "separate but lesser," so that while a few women might benefit (by winning medals they wouldn't otherwise), most lose out, both because there aren't as many events for women to compete in at all and because of the discouraging effects (of there being fewer events and of winning them being less meaningful due to the stigma of being easier.) This is pretty commonly the problem with separate but equal strategies because, under these systems, the favored group usually still manages to take a bigger slice. For example, in the US, we don't allow separate but equal as a racial strategy because, e.g., through the mechanics of local funding of schools, separate was never equal there, either.

Btw, I got taken to taken to task (to the point of being called sexist!) for pointing out that the "bigger slice" argument that men should have more events because there were more men who shoot amounts to saying they're entitled to more simply because they're men. But consider: Gender is an accident of birth, like eye color. So far as I know, ability to shoot does not just "rub off." Adding more male shooters to the population doesn't make any particular one any better. Absent other qualifications, having lots of other men who shoot does not, at least to me, suggest that any randomly-chosen male shooter should necessarily be better or entitled to greater opportunity to compete than any similarly-chosen female. It's not like opening an event only to those who post a qualifying score or present some other credential (including credentials unrelated to ability, e.g., years of membership) beyond simple accident of birth. That's why allocating numbers of events based on numbers of male and female participants at large amounts to granting greater privilege to men simply because they're men.

Regarding women's participation at NRA events, I think we may be looking at a completely different set of issues, some of which I've outlined earler. NRA events tend to emphasize higher caliber and higher power guns (e.g., 1911 and HP rifle) that are likely less interesting to women; I think it's more of a male thing (oddball women like me aside) to want to show off that you can shoot "the most powerful handgun in the world." Also, it's pretty clear that NRA's political message resonates better with men, in part because the NRA doesn't seem to understand women. (I've given the examples of their women's magazine filled with recipes for cooking possum and of their sending me a guy's jacket when I bought a life membership.)

the president of the NRA is a woman.... (again) but yeah, they probly don't understand woman well.... but the converse is even more true.

"Returning to your point that it's in "women's interest" that shooting is segregated, "

Actually what I think I meant was that it is the ISSF's point that it is in the "women's interest" not so much my point. (They designed the courses of fire and picked the MQS numbers not me)

I agree with Richard H, that looking only at 2 matches out of the dozens for which data is available is a very small sample and it is entirely possible that in about 50% of the cases women outperform men and I happened to pick two that did not.

My lunch hour and attention span did not allow me to look at more results, but I did ask other readers to do that for me :)

But I had a suspicion I would see the score differential since one of my "heroes" in the olympic shooting world is a female shooter and I'd been watching her scores and those of my male "role models" and noticed the 390 vs 590 ratio in the past.

I think it is "logical" for USAS to run matches segregated by gender exactly as the olympics & WC are.

But if there is a strong interest (or even a weak interest) in making all USAS matches "open" so that all US women (and visitors) can shoot Free pistol or rapid at the nationals, then I would support that too. (conversely it means men get to shoot Sport Pistol, I don't think I support that one quite as strongly)

Again, I am trying to hold a polite discussion, not start an argument, and I tend to be color-blind or whatever the equivalent of that is for this subject.

Poole

Bill's data is spot on and checks with larger samples of more widely available data; it is not a "fluke" of his "cherry picking" a narrow example to try to prove a point (as a previous poster implied, quite scurrilously I might add).

Today, and in recent history, women (in general and at the elite levels) are not performing as well as the men in the pistol events where direct ("fair") comparisons can be made.

Note that the differences in performance between men and women in the comparable rifle events is much narrower (but still measurable).

We can argue about the reasons why- and whether or not this needs to be "fixed" (or is even "fixable" for that matter) but the data is pretty clear.

Perhaps the degree to which you refuse to recognize an obviously demonstrable fact like this says more about your worldview and what you would *like* to be true than the merits of your argument by itself?

Why do people **automatically** get so upset when differences in performance between men and women are pointed out?!?!

"Sexism" is not the reason why (in general) men are taller, women can undergo more g forces, men are faster in the sprints, women have more resilient synovial tissue (flexibility), men have more upper body strength, women are more resistant to disease, men have higher bone density, etc. etc. etc.

Steve Swartz

Nicole - In France women compete at National championship in Free pistol discipline. I don't see any reason why should not be the same in your country.

Men compete in sport pistol.
In 10 M mobile target both men and women compete together.

It would be nice to have an input from other countries too.

- Ned

Ned wrote:Nicole - In France women compete at National championship in Free pistol discipline. I don't see any reason why should not be the same in your country.

Men compete in sport pistol.
In 10 M mobile target both men and women compete together.

It would be nice to have an input from other countries too.

- Ned

In Canada it's the same. I love sport pistol.

Steve Swartz wrote:Today, and in recent history, women (in general and at the elite levels) are not performing as well as the men in the pistol events where direct ("fair") comparisons can be made.

Note that the differences in performance between men and women in the comparable rifle events is much narrower (but still measurable).

We can argue about the reasons why- and whether or not this needs to be "fixed" (or is even "fixable" for that matter) but the data is pretty clear.

Perhaps the degree to which you refuse to recognize an obviously demonstrable fact like this says more about your worldview and what you would *like* to be true than the merits of your argument by itself?

Why do people **automatically** get so upset when differences in performance between men and women are pointed out?!?!

Is this question directed to me? If so, I honestly don't know why as I had thought I was quite clear.

Comparing highest observed values isn't even close to being a mathematically valid means of comparing a population characteristic when the sample sizes differ. Though the numbers of men and women (the populations) are roughly equal, the numbers of men and women who shoot (the sample sizes) are, by all accounts, very different. The fact that highest observed are close enough to spawn discussion of whether there even is a difference speaks to the likelihood of the actual difference, if any, being quite small. (I appreciate that if you didn't believe me on this point before, you probably still don't, so perhaps you just need to find a male friend with a statistics background to confirm I'm not just making this up as I go along.)

But more to the point, let's assume for sake of argument, not just that the best male shooters (highest observed) are always better than the best female shooters but that males actually do have an advantage. It's a tall order to test this (ask that male statistician to explain why valid sampling is a deceptively hard problem), but let's assume we proved that the whole curve of men's abilities is shifted to the right a few points.

[At this point, I'll even concede that, if true, there might even be an anthropological explanation related to traditional gender roles of the male as the hunter who needed better gross motor and spacial abilities, e.g., to throw a rock and bring home prey, compared to the female as the nurturer. It is, of course, a separate question which skills, gross motor or fine motor, are more important in, say, free pistol.]

Okay, so now you have me agreeing, at least for sake of argument, that men are just plain better than women and that's just the way it is here on Planet Earth.

So what. Even that huge concession wouldn't change the fact that what we have is a separate but lesser system that gives a very few women a chance to win medals they might not otherwise but denies all the other women a chance even to compete. A very small number of women might benefit but all the rest are harmed. I don't call that a good trade; if that seems unimportant, perhaps it's because it's not your ox being gored.

Regarding your question of why people automatically get upset when differences in performance by gender are pointed out, I don't know that it is automatic. What I and other activist women do object to is men demanding a concession that men are just better even when the evidence is, at most, inconclusive.

Study after study (c.f., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) confirms women's experience of early socialization, especially around the beginning of adolescence, that a man's role is to be competent, but a woman's role is to be pretty and feminine. Girls are socialized to expect that women shouldn't even try certain things (e.g., studying math) because these are male domains where they'll likely fail. They're also socialized to expect that it's a woman's place to set aside their own personal goals for the good of the family; one study [6] focused on this as a problem even for elite female Olympic athletes. And let me promise, there's not a woman alive here in the West without a visceral understanding of the adage that "a strong man is assertive but a strong woman is a bitch!"

Obviously, it's possible to offer up anecdotal evidence that appears to question whether the barriers are as significant as claimed. A common example that irks many women (and which other minorities can probably relate to) is the woman who's achieved some degree of success (she's vice president of something somewhere) and tells the story of how she did it through hard work and if you work hard, too, you can have all this. And yes, she does have time for her husband and her kids. All it requires is that hard work stuff she already mentioned.

Women are irked by these speeches because they know, even if she isn’t admitting it, that success for women also involves luck -- and more of it than most men require for the same outcome. They know she probably had a boss who believed in her and she probably also had some amount of luck in her initial assignments that got her off on the right foot. And they know also that men may latch onto these stories as evidence beyond the anecdotal that gender bias and differing patterns in early socialization either don't exist or don't matter, concluding that men enjoy more success because they deserve it; just ask the women who are bright enough to see the truth. It's a compelling story because we all like to ascribe our successes to competence and our failures to bad luck. (And yes, I know this cuts both ways.)

Part of the problem is that when women raise questions of fair treatment, men may perceive it as threatening. White males don't always perceive themselves as privileged and may resent intimations that they are. Even men with a long-standing commitment to "equal treatment" may be uncomfortable acknowledging the different experiences of women, as though to acknowledge them undermines that equal treatment. [7]

So when a man seems to be arguing that women aren't as good, so here's what men are going to do to help and that it's all for the women's own good, a lot of women recognize that as something they've heard before. And they feel frustrated that men still don't seem to be hearing what they're saying.

There is one thing that is easy to compare between men and women and that would be finals score in AP and AR. As both shoot exactly the same course of fire under the same conditions. But I would compare finals in lesser events than World Cups as well.

The top 8 men might be better than the top eight women, but that does not mean that men in general shoot higher scores than women. You would have to compare means of a statiscally significant population of both populations and test whether the differences between the two are significant at a certain confidence interval.

I raised the question earlier if women truly shoot lower scores then men, why would that be? Might it not be because they are denied the competition with the better shooting men? Just some questions for thought.

Study after study (c.f., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) confirms women's experience of early socialization, especially around the beginning of adolescence, that a man's role is to be competent, but a woman's role is to be pretty and feminine. Girls are socialized to expect that women shouldn't even try certain things (e.g., studying math) because these are male domains where they'll likely fail. They're also socialized to expect that it's a woman's place to set aside their own personal goals for the good of the family; one study [6] focused on this as a problem even for elite female Olympic athletes. And let me promise, there's not a woman alive here in the West without a visceral understanding of the adage that "a strong man is assertive but a strong woman is a bitch!"

Nicole I don't know but I hope you aren't stating that all this comes from men. As many of the greatest pressures regarding sexual sterotypes and roles comes from ones own gender, be it male or female. A recent study showed that men were ten times more likely to vote for a women political canidate than another women would. Women are far more critical of other women than men are.

Richard H wrote:Nicole I don't know but I hope you aren't stating that all this comes from men.

Not by a long shot! A lot of most women's early socialization comes from their mothers who tell their daughers this is what your lot in life is all about. This is one of the points you'll see raised repeatedly in the references I cited. But your concern for clarification is what I meant by my comment at the end that even men who are quite committed to equal treatment may feel uncomfortable in the discussion of differences in socialization; I think they sometimes hear it as an attack, as if they're being told it's their fault. But that's not at all what's intended.

Btw, I appreciate your support regarding the validity of using highest observed versus mean to test whether ability to shoot is related to gender. I agree that even if there is a difference, there could be a lot of extraneous reasons. Your example of being denied tougher competition is a good one. It's also possible they don't receive the same coaching. Others may have more to do with socialization: If you're a woman who's been told it's a man's sport and you likely won't be any good, how hard will you try? If you'd like to accomplish something, it helps to believe it's possible.

After much thought and reflection I deleted the substance of my reply (why waste my time) and instead choose to answer your post. You are beng given the gift of "the last word" as far as I am concerned, as this will be my last public declaration on this matter.

1. Have you *critically* read any of the cites you provided; and better yet, gone back and read the cites of the authors of the articles you provided?). Most of the literature you referred to was not exactly rigorous; and did not even present *testable* (let alone *tested*) hypotheses.

2. Also, rigor has value in determining objective truth. Peer reviewed publications are not perfect, but they pass the smell test. There is a huge difference between "Wikopedia" level articles and "Managemnt Science" level articles. Just because the word "Journal" is in the title doesn't mean it's rigorous. Cabell's is a good source for classifying rigor across disciplines. Good students are forced to learn the difference (at least by the doctoral candidacy).

As my argument has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with *why* the performance differences are measureable, references to the preadolescent socialization of girls is pretty much irrelevant in any case.

As to the statistical validity of the performance difference, have at it. Go ahead- objectively test the hypothesis Ho: There is no measurable performance difference against Ha: There is a performance difference. Use a one-tailed test based on "Men shoot higher scores" and an alpha level of 0.10 (to be reasonable) or 0.05 (to be stubborn). Run both parametric tests on score as a percentage of possible and nonparametrics on ranks.n Use *all* available data- and use the population of *all* PTOs from USAS. Of course variances will be unequal, and of course the distributions are not strictly gaussian.

You can either fit reality to your belief system; or fit your belief system to reality.

Steve Swartz

Analysis that I think would be interesting:

compare all the finals, (we can just sum the 8 scores in each case), go back several years, compare mens air pistol to womens and compare the two air rifles, and I think we could even do 3P. this would show finals performance under very similar circumstances. Because of the mental pressure in finals, it could show a different result (men or women better) than the full qualifier marathon, I mean match, which may be more dependent on stamina. When I was looking at results I only did one such comparison, I did not report in my earlier post. (men scored higher) One risk with summing or averaging the finals is that if one person forgot to turn his trigger back on or cross fires, it would skew then entire group (which is why sometimes the low score and high score are removed)

find data showing the 10 shot strings in AP and AR, compare the 5th and 6th strings to see if there is a measureable decrease in performance (the fatigue factor, only applies to men), also compare the 3rd & 4th strings of each 3x40 stage. The purpose for this is to determine if the 60-shot can be converted to 40 shot (or percentage) directly without an offset for fatigue or if a tiny percentage correction needs to be made for fatigue. (if there is truly a fatigue factor then adjusting for it will slightly raise the men's converted score)

Take all the qualifier total scores (normalize them to %) for the last several years, plot them on a chart that creates a gaussian distribution (bell curve) with score on the X axis and number of occurances on the Y axis (there will be very few 591's and few 552's in all the last few years world cups, but lots of 578's)

Plot the gausian distribution for men and women in separate curves on the same chart. Observe the shape and location of the peaks of the two curves.

If the curves peak at the same spot but the men's curve dribbles out a little to the right, it means that men and women shoot the same, but a few men got luckier. On the other hand if the "bell" of the curve for one group or the other is to the right than more of the participants in that group are doing better.

(we may need to artificially multiply the number of instances by the ratio of men to women so the total area under each curve (total number of data points) is the same, this will make the curves similar in size but might mask it if the men's peak performance is due to luck of numbers)

Now, all of the above ONLY compares elite athletes who are elite enough to have qualified for world cups in their national teams.

Now, being one who is better at talking about something than actually doing it, I doubt I'll find the attention span to actually perform the above analysis. Who feels like doing it?

more to follow

Poole