Gilbert Comments About Maria Playing Junior Boys

7.0 womens=~5.0 mens

i hit with a top ga female in the 18's whose around a womens 6.0. i was pretty much equal with her and im a 14's player
 
and u can tell with the way mens players hit their strokes. more leg bending and getting lower to the ground, womens player kinda slug their arm into the shot
 
Women are competitive with men in at least

one sport - Long Distance Swimming. Here is just an example,
AMERICAN LONG DISTANCE SWIMMING RECORDS (Updated 2/28/2007)(pdf)
that gives everyone an idea where the "breakpoint" is. Women seem to become very competitive with men and even surpassing them in this sport at distances of around 25-30 kilometers and greater. It seems that the world speed records for really long distance events like the triple English channel swim, swimming the Santa Barbara channel and the like, have passed between men and women at various times, so women are definitely "in the game" in this sport.

Another argument might be made for certain gymnastic events like the Balance Beam, but male gymnasts just don't do that one for some reason. Could be the bigger Ouch! if you miss:mrgreen:
 
Another interesting link on the competitiveness of cross-gender long distance swimming. A quote from Ch8, A Statistical Analysis Of Individual Swims Across the Catalina Channel 1927-1996
In the analysis of gender to speed, the hypothesis that female's achievements equal those of the male's was demonstrated. Even though the female's mean time was an hour and five minutes faster than the male's, this was not significant. In addition, the nine swims left out seemed to verify this

OK, off on a tangent I know...returning back to the subject of the greatest sport of all...
 
Guygee and Beernutz have it right. The top women will kill the top juniors at (serious) endurance events, such as ultramarathons and long distance swimming (events in which its not even a good idea for juniors to try to compete...).

But, other than pure endurance sports, I agree with Cyborg...well,maybe lawn bowls and curling are exceptions as well, but any sport where explosive athleticism is a factor isn't going to be a contest for simple physiological reasons (combined with superior numbers - many more men than women play competitive sport, so obviously have a statistical advantage when looking at the right tails of the distributions).
 
Ho hum. Set it up. Have the top 16 yo's in the world play the top 5 WTA players in the world. Place your bets. This is old news.
 
Now if you train a girl to be at the level of male players then guess what they will be at the level of male players. If she wins or not in a hypothetical matchup between her and a top 100 man is up to whoever plays better for that match.

To say that a women who is on the same or high level of tennis then any man in the top 100 wouldn't have a chance in hell of beating said man in the top 100 no matter his skill level is absurd

Sondraj, in both these paragraphs you make the assumption that the female player is already at the level of a top 100 male. Since your assumption has no factual basis then the following deduction also has no factual basis.

Men and women a biologically unequal. This is NOT about gender rights, it is basic human physiology. Relative to women, men have been naturally taking steroids for their entire lives. Men have much more natural testosterone - this gives us more muscle volume and greater muscle and bone density. In addition, the male brain is hard-wired differently than the female brain. The motor cortex in a male brain is proportionally larger and more highly developed than the female brain. This is true when you compare both average and maximum size. So not only are men naturally better equipped with respect to strength and explosiveness, men are also given a better 'guidance system' to control that extra strength and power. In university level physiology courses you can verify for yourself (if you haven't already) the biological mechanisms triggered by the Y-chromosome that lead to these developmental differences.

Gender, or for that matter religion or race, should never be used to prevent an individual from TRYING to accomplish something. If a young girl dreams of joining the ATP tour she should be free to pursue that dream. However, basic human physiology places her at an insurmountable disadvantage. If she is talented and trains hard, she will likely be able to train to a level that allows her to beat many men who play competitive club tennis. However at the truly elite levels of sport, where both males and females are at the very top of their genders with respect to talent and training, the natural biological edge dictates that the elite males will dominate the elite females in any field that places a premium on strength, speed and power.
 
Sondraj, in both these paragraphs you make the assumption that the female player is already at the level of a top 100 male. Since your assumption has no factual basis then the following deduction also has no factual basis.

Men and women a biologically unequal. This is NOT about gender rights, it is basic human physiology. Relative to women, men have been naturally taking steroids for their entire lives. Men have much more natural testosterone - this gives us more muscle volume and greater muscle and bone density. In addition, the male brain is hard-wired differently than the female brain. The motor cortex in a male brain is proportionally larger and more highly developed than the female brain. This is true when you compare both average and maximum size. So not only are men naturally better equipped with respect to strength and explosiveness, men are also given a better 'guidance system' to control that extra strength and power. In university level physiology courses you can verify for yourself (if you haven't already) the biological mechanisms triggered by the Y-chromosome that lead to these developmental differences.

Gender, or for that matter religion or race, should never be used to prevent an individual from TRYING to accomplish something. If a young girl dreams of joining the ATP tour she should be free to pursue that dream. However, basic human physiology places her at an insurmountable disadvantage. If she is talented and trains hard, she will likely be able to train to a level that allows her to beat many men who play competitive club tennis. However at the truly elite levels of sport, where both males and females are at the very top of their genders with respect to talent and training, the natural biological edge dictates that the elite males will dominate the elite females in any field that places a premium on strength, speed and power.

All the points you've made have everything to do with a man's ability to out power a woman on the court. Strength's doesn't win you a tennis match, skill does and their is no psyciolological superiority that exists in the male brain that allows for elevated tennis play that doesn't exist for women.

Everything you stated about men and their biological edge outside of the physical I will be the first to admit has a whole hell of a lot to do with the fact that men are naturally better at subjects like science and math, analytical thinking, not sports

and to your point about me assuming, in my latter post I state IF you raise a girl to train and play at the same level as the boys then yes she will be equal in skill and ability to think out on court NOT STRENGTH

you assuming that strength wins tennis matches over skill
for women if you tr
 
All the points you've made have everything to do with a man's ability to out power a woman on the court. Strength's doesn't win you a tennis match, skill does and their is no psyciolological superiority that exists in the male brain that allows for elevated tennis play that doesn't exist for women.

Everything you stated about men and their biological edge outside of the physical I will be the first to admit has a whole hell of a lot to do with the fact that men are naturally better at subjects like science and math, analytical thinking, not sports

and to your point about me assuming, in my latter post I state IF you raise a girl to train and play at the same level as the boys then yes she will be equal in skill and ability to think out on court NOT STRENGTH

you assuming that strength wins tennis matches over skill
for women if you tr

Strength, power and speed DO matter in tennis. Finesse and technique can be overwhelmed by brute force. This point is so clear that I'm surpised you're trying to refute it. And at the elite levels women will find that they have no advantage in skill and a considerable disadvantage in the aforementioned categories.

The motor cortex has little to do with science and math, and everything to do with proprioception, balance, and high speed coordination. It is clear to me now that you have never taken university level physiology. Psychological factors were completely absent from my post.
 
Strength, power and speed DO matter in tennis. Finesse and technique can be overwhelmed by brute force. This point is so clear that I'm surpised you're trying to refute it. And at the elite levels women will find that they have no advantage in skill and a considerable disadvantage in the aforementioned categories.

The motor cortex has little to do with science and math, and everything to do with proprioception, balance, and high speed coordination. It is clear to me now that you have never taken university level physiology. Psychological factors were completely absent from my post.


really is that clear to you. Yes I have but it's not like it was my major.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, it does. But to assume that in some hypothetical situation where a female has trained at the level of her male counterparts and executes all of her tennis ability at or above the the level of those male counterparts couldn't possible win a match between her a one of those top 100 male counterparts in not accurate

by your logic because men are naturally better at said above abilities then every male who is born male is naturally better than every female who is born female. Hello have you ever seen zaldrunas ilgaskuas (sp) he plays for the caviliers and just about any woman in the wnba would run circles around him on a court.

This logic doesn't fit because if it did like I said men are naturally better at analytical thinking but still some how, lord knows how, the highest I.Q ever recorded was by a woman

and their are women who excel pass their male counterparts in subjects like math and science all the time, funny I know the way the human brain works
 
Enough of this crap.

Take 2 players.
1) a female tennis player that is "equal in skill and ability" as
2) a male top 100 player

Do you know what you end up with? Two players, one slower and weaker than the other. Guess who'll win the match?

Sondraj's argument would only begin to make sense if we were to compare a woman with superior skill and ability to a male top 100 player. That would be skill vs strength, which is way different from skill vs skill+strength.

This should be OBVIOUS to everyone.
 
Enough of this crap.

Take 2 players.
1) a female tennis player that is "equal in skill and ability" as
2) a male top 100 player

Do you know what you end up with? Two players, one slower and weaker than the other. Guess who'll win the match?

Sondraj's argument would only begin to make sense if we were to compare a woman with superior skill and ability to a male top 100 player. That would be skill vs strength, which is way different from skill vs skill+strength.

This should be OBVIOUS to everyone.

well the point was that there is no woman who if equal in skill and ability that could possibly beat and man if equal or at a lower level of skill in ability

soooo....

once again I say it's absurd to think just because a man is a man that is is superior in skill and ability, no you have to train to be superior. natural talent counts for a lot but the Roger Federers of the world are few and far between.
 
well the point was that there is no woman who if equal in skill and ability that could possibly beat and man if equal or at a lower level of skill in ability

soooo....

once again I say it's absurd to think just because a man is a man that is is superior in skill and ability, no you have to train to be superior. natural talent counts for a lot but the Roger Federers of the world are few and far between.

oh and once again to say that a women would be slower than a male tennis player just because.. is also inaccurate. Maybe if they were competing in track then that argument would come into play maybe. Though I'm more than confident there are women out there who are faster than their male counterparts in track and field. O

once again defying the laws of gender, scary I know
 
well the point was that there is no woman who if equal in skill and ability that could possibly beat and man if equal or at a lower level of skill in ability

soooo....

once again I say it's absurd to think just because a man is a man that is is superior in skill and ability, no you have to train to be superior. natural talent counts for a lot but the Roger Federers of the world are few and far between.

Everything you said was based on things I DID NOT SAY.

I never said a woman couldn't beat a man with lower level of skill.

I never said a man is superior in skill and ability than a woman.

You know what? Here's my post AGAIN. Read it:


Enough of this crap.

Take 2 players.
1) a female tennis player that is "equal in skill and ability" as
2) a male top 100 player

Do you know what you end up with? Two players, one slower and weaker than the other. Guess who'll win the match?

Sondraj's argument would only begin to make sense if we were to compare a woman with superior skill and ability to a male top 100 player. That would be skill vs strength, which is way different from skill vs skill+strength.

This should be OBVIOUS to everyone.
 
really is that clear to you. Yes I have but it's not like it was my major.

Yes it is clear to me. Either you are lying or you did not absorb the material well. If you had done either you wouldn't have made the basic mistake of confusing science and math ability (which has no relevance whatsoever in this discussion) with the more relevant motor functions of the motor cortex.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, it does. But to assume that in some hypothetical situation where a female has trained at the level of her male counterparts and executes all of her tennis ability at or above the the level of those male counterparts couldn't possible win a match between her a one of those top 100 male counterparts in not accurate

Actually you did try to say it doesnt matter. In any case, the hypothetical woman will train and fail to reach a top 100 level because of equal talent combined with significant deficiencies in speed,strength and power.

by your logic because men are naturally better at said above abilities then every male who is born male is naturally better than every female who is born female. Hello have you ever seen zaldrunas ilgaskuas (sp) he plays for the caviliers and just about any woman in the wnba would run circles around him on a court.

This logic doesn't fit because if it did like I said men are naturally better at analytical thinking but still some how, lord knows how, the highest I.Q ever recorded was by a woman

and their are women who excel pass their male counterparts in subjects like math and science all the time, funny I know the way the human brain works

This entire section is irrelevant. Go read my first post again and re-familiarize yourself with my logic.
 
Everything you said was based on things I DID NOT SAY.

I never said a woman couldn't beat a man with lower level of skill.

I never said a man is superior in skill and ability than a woman.

You know what? Here's my post AGAIN. Read it:


Enough of this crap.

Take 2 players.
1) a female tennis player that is "equal in skill and ability" as
2) a male top 100 player

Do you know what you end up with? Two players, one slower and weaker than the other. Guess who'll win the match?

Sondraj's argument would only begin to make sense if we were to compare a woman with superior skill and ability to a male top 100 player. That would be skill vs strength, which is way different from skill vs skill+strength.

This should be OBVIOUS to everyone.

wait maybe I'm confused so you didn't say that the women would end up slower than her male counterpart
 
Did I say a woman couldn't beat a man with lower level of skill?

Did I say a man is superior in skill and ability than a woman?
 
I think that there are areas where women can become equals with men. Like for example their technique and consistency. However, after a certain level, junior boys will definitely beat pro women simply because of their raw advantage in power and speed.

Perhaps this fact is enhanced in tennis because it involves direct competition between players. In sports like golf, players do not go head-to-head with their opponent. That is why there are more possibilities for mixed match ups (take for example Michelle Wie's proposed switches to the mens' tour)

I reckon most young males after puberty could beat Serena/venus in arm wrestling contests.
 
Did I say a woman couldn't beat a man with lower level of skill?

Did I say a man is superior in skill and ability than a woman?

My post was more as a response to the crap part, I thought you didn't understand why there was such disfraction between differing opinion about this subject.

-not any quote specific-

And really people need to calm down, I don't know why folks continue to discus topics with people if they can't handle some one disagreeing with them

If every time some one has an thought that is counter active to yours and you feel the need to insult them maybe you should stick to having convos with yourself in your head.
 
I think that there are areas where women can become equals with men. Like for example their technique and consistency. However, after a certain level, junior boys will definitely beat pro women simply because of their raw advantage in power and speed.

Perhaps this fact is enhanced in tennis because it involves direct competition between players. In sports like golf, players do not go head-to-head with their opponent. That is why there are more possibilities for mixed match ups (take for example Michelle Wie's proposed switches to the mens' tour)

I reckon most young males after puberty could beat Serena/venus in arm wrestling contests.

Thank you for explaining yourself without the need for insults or catty remarks.

I get what you are saying, which is odd because when certain other posters stated what I believe to be the same or close to same point it didn't come off nearly as unbiased and clear

I understand your point I don't necessarily agreed 100% with it. But I get how that makes sense
 
There isn't a differing opinion amongst people in this thread. 90 posts till now and it's just you against a busload of people stating facts.

Do you think Venus or Serena could beat #99 Gaudio? If so, you're alone.
 
I reckon most young males after puberty could beat Serena/venus in arm wrestling contests.

Now that's just ignorant.

Hell, our college tennis team looked like the chess club compared to the girls basketball team in the varsity weight room. It was farking embarassing.

Maybe there's a chance women could be better, but reality shows that in the game of tennis, there is an incredible difference in the level of play between men and women at the top of their game.
 
There isn't a differing opinion amongst people in this thread. 90 posts till now and it's just you against a busload of people stating facts.

Do you think Venus or Serena could beat #99 Gaudio? If so, you're alone.

well if my opinion is different then it is a differing opinion. And now I'm being crucified because I don't share you alls opinion. O.K back to my last comment

If you can't handle some one disagreeing with you continue to have convos in you head with yourself. It's the only really way to know that everyone agrees with you
 
Do you have reading comprehension problems? When did anyone ever say that a female tennis player could not beat a male tennis player? Everyone was refering to the highest levels of the game.



Right here you are claiming that a woman could beat a top 100 man. How can a woman be at the same level of tennis as a top 100 man if physiological barriers exist to prevent a woman from ever reaching that level? Why do you act like a top 100 man might have inferior skills to a woman? Obviously if he's top 100, then his skills are superior to most everyone in the world.[/QUOTE]

Because if he is a top 100 level male then that mens he doesn't play with women in competition ever

So how is it ever to be known what a women who was brought up playing the game at the same level as her male counterpart will do against one of her top 100 male counterpart in competition, if it doesn't exist.

And the reason as I've said before that women don't play at the level of men is because just that they don't play at the level of men, not that they can't play at the level of men. wow broken record here
 
And the reason as I've said before that women don't play at the level of men is because just that they don't play at the level of men, not that they can't play at the level of men. wow broken record here

yeah, they choose not to.

How old are you sondra?
 
yeah, they choose not to.

How old are you sondra?


wow we are getting some where, yes they or their coaches choose not to.

So if this hypothetical scenario actually occurred with a women who chose to learn and train at the level of her male top 100 counterparts.... oh only the stars could tell
 
yes they or their coaches choose not to... learn and train at the level of her male top 100 counterparts...

you cannot be serious. they bust their ass just as much as men. we both agree women are EQUAL to men when it comes to will power. Okay, I'll play your game. WHY does Henin choose not to train as hard as Djokovic?
 
what have you concluded my hypothesis is?

also, i love women. why do you hate men?

I don't know

I do understand the reasoning behind this thought process that a women couldn't beat a man at their highest levels thanks to mercurynsolace although I don't agree with it 100%.
 
you cannot be serious. they bust their ass just as much as men. we both agree women are EQUAL to men when it comes to will power. Okay, I'll play your game. WHY does Henin choose not to train as hard as Djokovic?


Oh I don't think they train any less, I think they train in a manner that is not as productive to all around tennis success as the men. For the reason I've stated before. All the things in general women on wta lack.

I'll back and find if you want me too. I really can't think of those exact reason I stated right now
 
i'm not interested in knowing how they train in a less productive manner. rather, i'm interested in why they choose to do so. they train as much as men, on that we agree. why would they choose to train less productively? why should this make sense to them? if they want their practice to be less productive, why not train more productively for a shorter session and have the rest of the day off?
 
"They don't hit the ball as cleanly, they don't have net game, they don't feel the ball as well. They don't have much variety, and their placement is off."


Right now women don't do these thing well at all

This is why the train less productively, when a women who can utilize these aspect at or above the level of her male counterparts then she will have a chance at beating him
 
"They don't hit the ball as cleanly, they don't have net game, they don't feel the ball as well. They don't have much variety, and their placement is off."

whose quote is that?

when a women who can utilize these aspect at or above the level of her male counterparts then she will have a chance at beating him

even if he has a 150mph serve and an 90mph forehand? i don't believe a woman could. this is where we disagree. this is what you call "my hypothesis". this is what i call facts. at least NOW i know what you were trying to say. it took a dozen posts to get here.
 
Sondraj: Women have enough trouble hitting against other women. Imagine hitting against someone with more power and control. Do you really think that this is a *choice* issue? This isn't a question of equality or feminine rights, it's a question of reason and science.
 
whose quote is that?



even if he has a 150mph serve and an 90mph forehand? i don't believe a woman could. this is where we disagree. this is what you call "my hypothesis". this is what i call facts. at least NOW i know what you were trying to say. it took a dozen posts to get here.

That's funny you say that because the above quote is mine. but I'm use to people not getting my point. usually it's because people are so quick to argue when the hear anything they don't like. They can't comprehend passed their anger
 
Sondraj: Women have enough trouble hitting against other women. Imagine hitting against someone with more power and control. Do you really think that this is a *choice* issue? This isn't a question of equality or feminine rights, it's a question of reason and science.

I do think it would be a problem for a women depending on the strength of the guy she is hitting against but is it impossible to over come that with better play, no.

And I don't think any women at present could compete with the men on tour right now.

I've said that I don't agree that women deserve equal pay because I don't think that they play an equal game
 
That's funny you say that because the above quote is mine. but I'm use to people not getting my point. usually it's because people are so quick to argue when the hear anything they don't like. They can't comprehend passed their anger

What I dont think you're understanding is that much of the anger is not mysgonistic on this board or angry at you for challenging gender norms; its frustration of trying not to sound mysgonistic when presenting you with facts that say women cannot, at their peak, be as athletic as men at their peak. Its not a gender issue; we're not relying on gender norms to say what a sex can or cannot do, or saying that women are mentally incapable of hanging with males. Ideally, what you say is correct; if a woman had the drive to train at the level or above the level of a man, she could hang with them...but this is in an ideal setting, where the physiological peaks of men and women are not a factor. but in the real world, those peaks are definitely real and present. I'm not saying it'd be bad for a woman to try to train at the level of an atp pro or try to hang with them, heck, if they did, it could only make the women's game better. But at some point that physical peak would come into play and the woman would lose, because for all the angles in the book, she would not physically be able to handle the pace and hit the balls she wanted to. This isnt a Gender argument, its a simple physiological difference between the sexes. you might just be continuing to argue because you get a laugh out of getting guys on a tennis board riled up, but until you pull the joke, we have to assume you're actually ignoring facts.
 
What I dont think you're understanding is that much of the anger is not mysgonistic on this board or angry at you for challenging gender norms; its frustration of trying not to sound mysgonistic when presenting you with facts that say women cannot, at their peak, be as athletic as men at their peak. Its not a gender issue; we're not relying on gender norms to say what a sex can or cannot do, or saying that women are mentally incapable of hanging with males. Ideally, what you say is correct; if a woman had the drive to train at the level or above the level of a man, she could hang with them...but this is in an ideal setting, where the physiological peaks of men and women are not a factor. but in the real world, those peaks are definitely real and present. I'm not saying it'd be bad for a woman to try to train at the level of an atp pro or try to hang with them, heck, if they did, it could only make the women's game better. But at some point that physical peak would come into play and the woman would lose, because for all the angles in the book, she would not physically be able to handle the pace and hit the balls she wanted to. This isnt a Gender argument, its a simple physiological difference between the sexes. you might just be continuing to argue because you get a laugh out of getting guys on a tennis board riled up, but until you pull the joke, we have to assume you're actually ignoring facts.

I already stated that I understand that argument. I don't agree with every angle you all have used to prove it.

And to be honest the only reason you felt as though I was trying to goat people into an argument or " just be continuing to argue because you get a laugh out of getting guys on a tennis board riled up, but until you pull the joke, we have to assume you're actually ignoring facts". is once again because chose to see it that way instead of listening to what I was saying and deciding to agree or disagree instead of throwing around silly insults
 
usually it's because people are so quick to argue when the hear anything they don't like. They

i'm lightning quick to argue when i hear something that goes against facts. biology is a fact and so is physics.

They can't comprehend passed their anger

i'm too old to get angry at such stuff. this is a discussion like thousands on these boards. pardon my use of the word "crap" earlier, it didn't signify anger. i don't consider it an offensive word, but i guess you do.
 
i'm lightning quick to argue when i hear something that goes against facts. biology is a fact and so is physics.



i'm too old to get angry at such stuff. this is a discussion like thousands on these boards. pardon my use of the word "crap" earlier, it didn't signify anger. i don't consider it an offensive word, but i guess you do.

Biology and physics, that wasn't the topic of discussion but i guess
 
I already stated that I understand that argument. I don't agree with every angle you all have used to prove it.

And to be honest the only reason you felt as though I was trying to goat people into an argument or " just be continuing to argue because you get a laugh out of getting guys on a tennis board riled up, but until you pull the joke, we have to assume you're actually ignoring facts". is once again because chose to see it that way instead of listening to what I was saying and deciding to agree or disagree instead of throwing around silly insults

1. I've not insulted you
2. the reason I and other folks think you might be trolling is that there are a bunch of trolls on this board. You're exhibiting troll like qualities. If it looks like a troll, acts like a troll...well...
3. And I have read your posts trying to understand where you don't agree with the "angles [we] all have used to prove it". you state that you understand women have a lower physical peak, but that power is nullified by the woman who can train at the atp level and use shotmaking and angles to beat it. We are saying that for all the shotmaking in the world, if the man can run faster and hit harder, she's not going to have as much of a chance to hit those shots, and that will rack up to a loss in the end. I can't see a woman physically hanging with a man over a set and a half, if that long, much less two full sets, or winning three out of five in a Major.
 
Biology and physics, that wasn't the topic of discussion

actually it was the topic, 100%. men and women are physically and biologically different. do these differences have an effect the level of tennis they can reach? the discussion was all about this and nothing about misogyny.
 
1. I've not insulted you
2. the reason I and other folks think you might be trolling is that there are a bunch of trolls on this board. You're exhibiting troll like qualities. If it looks like a troll, acts like a troll...well...
3. And I have read your posts trying to understand where you don't agree with the "angles [we] all have used to prove it". you state that you understand women have a lower physical peak, but that power is nullified by the woman who can train at the atp level and use shotmaking and angles to beat it. We are saying that for all the shotmaking in the world, if the man can run faster and hit harder, she's not going to have as much of a chance to hit those shots, and that will rack up to a loss in the end. I can't see a woman physically hanging with a man over a set and a half, if that long, much less two full sets, or winning three out of five in a Major.

So how was I acting like a troll because I disagreed with you all, wow thanks let me know at lot

and I said many posts and a couple of pages ago that I understand this point, and yes -bold- is what I don't agree with for reason that I've already stated.

and yes you are right about the angles I don't agree that remains the same. So we just disagree, it's not the end of the world
 
actually it was the topic, 100%. men and women are physically and biologically different. do these differences have an effect the level of tennis they can reach? the discussion was all about this and nothing about misogyny.

You keep bringing this up as if I ever said it, I never even utter the word

But what I wanted to say was that biology and physiology was never a talking point. It was never a point of disagreement, never.

what was a talking point was whethe it played a final role in a women over coming it and winning the match
 
Back
Top