Quote:
Originally Posted by Icheckforvalue
Well thats very convenient of you to be able to expand and contract the definition of logical at your own leisure.
You're clearly missing my point. Men are athletically more adept creatures than women. This is a physiological fact. You cannot argue this. And the reason for this, is the production of a hormone called testosterone which results in muscle mass, strength, bone, etc. Speed is also proportional to muscle force.
So in almost all major recognized sports, men will athletically dominate females. Im sorry to burst your bubble. Now...i am not saying this girl could not have gone on to win the tournament, because she really may have been the most skilled wrestler. What i am saying is that this child forfeited out of principle and that i can respect. If he accepted the match, he is in fact accepting open competition in any sport between male and female competitors. Im not sure how you would look at that, but thats biologically unfair, given the fact that men create up to over 10x as much testosterone as women.
As you almost bring up, wrestling is about more than pure strength. Regardless, this girl did lose her matches after this one, so I think it's fair to say she stood nearly no chance in this match, no matter what you attribute that to.
But more to the point, what is the point here? Should he have forfeited if any weaker opponent entered the ring (or mat, or whatever)? Why does anything matter when competitor X is set to compete against competitor Y except for how X will fare against Y? Should how the gender of X would fare against that of Y matter? What about race? Why don't we just see who can bench more weight and then have that person forfeit since he clearly has an unfair advantage?
If the girl wants to compete, then it's disrespectful to take that away from her and tell her she gets a win just because she's a girl.