I will be the first to tell that I do not like the WNBA. It's a very sad league and I think they
will fold completely unless there is a super women athlete to save it (MJ type of player). I thought about the reasons the WNBA is no good and I came to one conclusion. The league is filled with mediocre players and the level of competition is low. The best WNBA player can not compete in the NBA at all. If the WNBA was similar to the NBA in competition level, skills, talent, and ability then I believe it would be very successful. Lets take Candace Parker, she is considered the best female basketball player, then lets take Kobe Bryant, who is considered to be the best player in the world. If they played one on one, Kobe would destroy her. In my opinion, females would never be able to compete. There to small and to physically weak to compete with men.
Other sports like tennis, volleyball, and golf women can compete and be comparable to men because its not a physically sport. Serena Williams, in my opinion could compete with the best male tennis player because her lack of physicality would not matter. Michelle Wie has played with the thought of playing on the PGA Tour for the same exact reasons I stated for Serena Williams. Men physically are to much for women, but if the sport is non contact between opponents then women can compete.
I wonder if the WNBA had a Micheal Jordan type of dominate player would the NBA be interested of letting her in the league.
I do not believe the WNBA needs to have "NBA-caliber" players to be very successful. In fact, that is impossible to achieve - simply because they are women. That statement is not a knock on women athletes, but they are not the same as male athletes - that is why they have separate leagues.
ReplyDeleteThe WNBA should not focus on getting "NBA-caliber" talent - it should focus on gathering the best players for its own style. Other players, leagues and sports should follow the same idea.
I kind of agree with Tug's Take. The WNBA is doing alright and I can't decide if I feel they need an MJ of some sort. You were right in saying that women in the WNBA would not be able to play with men in the NBA, which is why that "W" was put infront of the National Basketball Association. The WNBA and NBA are structured completely different. Women in the WNBA play a different kind of defense and the game down low is completely altered without the ability to dunk. This calls for more of a "boring" game of basketball through the eyes of an NBA fan because you don't have the Dwight Howard's or the Shaq's or for that matter, the Z's who are one of the biggest guys on the court draining jumpers for beyond the arch. I'm not saying the WNBA is dead and needs to fold, but I am saying that you can not compare the two leagues on any level.
ReplyDeleteWow! Where do I begin? After the moving tribute you made to J-Mac, you did an about-face toward female athletes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I could say a lot, I will try to limit my remarks to only a few. I think the two Kevins brought up some important points--i.e., mainly, why do you have to gauge the women's success on the basis of what men are able to do? That is one reason there once was an AIAW, because women physical educators did not feel that women should have the same philosophical principles that guided men's sports (i.e., win at all costs). The thought was that women should play for enjoyment, and to participate. For a long time, historically, women were not encouraged to play rigorous physical contests. If you consider that the NCAA women's tournaments were not held until the early 1980s, the history is not that long. So again, it is not fair to gauge the success of women compared to men.
Now, if you do compare women to men, and conclude that women are not generally as big or strong, then why would you even begin to expect them/us to measure up to men? You do not expect a child to play like an adult, or an athlete with a disability to compete with an able-bodied athlete. There is no point in trying to compare them.
Finally, to say that tennis is not physical suggests to me that you have never played someone like Serena Williams, who would let you know how physical it really is! Furthermore, I am sorry to say that Serena (and Venus) both once played the No. 200-ranked man, Karsten Braasch, who was also a chain-smoker, I might add, and both lost their sets pretty easily (6-1 or 6-2). But again, it should not take away from their skills and abilities if they cannot beat the No. 1 or 200 or 1000-ranked men. There are different abilities, and there is no point in comparing!
I think that the WNBA has not gained popularity the way the NBA has because there will always be men that think like you. Take a second and ask yourself why you enjoy sport in general...because it's unpredictable...because there's some great athletes out there in the world? I feel that whatever reason you may have it's probable that women's sport has it as well as men's sport. The only difference is that women's sports have been compared to men's sport since day one.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the need for a Jordan-like player, I don't agree. There was only one Michael Jordan and that's all there will have ever been, and there was basketball before him and after him. One player may draw some new fans to the game but they don't make the game. It's the compilation of athletes that make the sport.
I agree the WNBA is something that does not have that star athlete. We do not see them marketing the WNBA. Maybe if Ms. Parker would help promote the WNBA there would maybe be some more interest there. I feel women's college basketball is better entertainment then the WNBA. I believe you mentioned in class about having a WNBA game right before the NBA game. That would be a great idea.
ReplyDelete